PERMANENT COUNCIL
OEA/Ser.G
CP/doc.4079/06
23 February 2006
Original: Spanish
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
This document is being distributed to the permanent missions
and will be presented to the Permanent Council of the Organization.
SECRETARIAT OF THE COURT
San José, February 13, 2006
CIDH-EDIT-17-06
Excellency:
Pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights, I have the honor to
address Your Excellency to ask that you kindly submit to the General Assembly, in accordance with
Article 91.f of the Charter of the Organization, the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights for 2005, in the four official languages of the Organization, as provided for in Article
35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Permanent Council.
Attached you will find a hard copy of the text of the Annual Report in Spanish, English,
French, and Portuguese, together with a CD-ROM containing the initial pages (cover page and
Contents), the texts themselves and the Appendices (in Spanish) to the Report. I should also like to
remind Your Excellency that in a Decision taken on June 22, 2005, the Court resolved to “differ
the translation of all its decisions issued as of January 1, 2005 until it has suffi cient financial
resources for that purpose, and consequently to disseminate said decisions only in the language in
which they were prepared.” Accordingly, the appendices to the Report are included in Spanish
only. I would be grateful if you could arrange for a copy of the Annual Report of the Court to be
forwarded by the General Secretariat to each of the missions, so that they can have it sufficiently in
advance of its presentation to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) of the
Organization.
I should also like to inform Your Excellency that for the presentation of the Report to the
CAJP on March 10, 2006 and for presentation to the General Assembly, the Court will be sending the
properly published version.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri
Secretary
His Excellency
José Miguel Insulza
Secretary General
Organization of American States
Washington, D.C
Telephone: (506) 234-0581 Fax: (506) 234-0584 Apdo. 6906-1000 San José, Costa Rica
E-mail: corteidh@corteidh.or.cr Pag. Web: wwwcorteidh.or.cr
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
2005
SAN JOSÉ, COSTA RICA
2006
court
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
2005
Series: OEA/Ser.L/V III.69
Doc. I
December 2, 2005
Original: Spanish
SAN JOSÉ, COSTA RICA
2006
341.245
C827i
2005
Inter.-American Court of Human Rights
Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights, 2005 / Inter-American Court of Human
Rights -- San José, C.R. : Inter-American Court of
Human Rights, 2006
v.; 27 cm. -- (Serie: OEA/Ser.L/V/III.69 Doc I)
Texto disponible en idioma inglés
ISSN 1409-0775
1. CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS
HUMANOS 2. DERECHOS HUMANOS - INFORMES
3. DERECHOS HUMANOS - SISTEMA INTERAMERICANO I . Título. II. Serie.
CONTENTS
I.
ORIGIN, STRUCTURE AND COMPETENCE OF THE COURT .................. 1
A.
Establishment ........................................................................ 1
B.
Organization .......................................................................... 1
C.
Composition ........................................................................... 2
D.
Jurisdiction ........................................................................... 3
1.
2.
3.
II.
Contentious function ........................................................ 3
Advisory function ............................................................ 4
Provisional measures ....................................................... 5
E.
Budget
........................................................................... 5
F.
Relations with similar regional organizations ........................ 5
JURISDICTIONAL AND ADVISORY ACTIVITIES
OF THE COURT
........................................................................... 6
A.
Sixty-sixth regular session of the Court ................................. 6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
B.
James et al. case (Trinidad and Tobago) ............................ 6
The Serrano Cruz Sisters case (El Salvador) ....................... 6
Liliana Ortega et al. case (Venezuela) ................................ 7
Huilca Tecse case (Peru) .................................................. 8
The Yakye Axa Indigenous Community case (Paraguay) ....... 8
The “Mapiripán Massacre” case (Colombia) ......................... 8
YATAMA case (Nicaragua) ................................................ 9
Gutiérrez Soler case (Colombia) ........................................ 9
Caesar case (Trinidad and Tobago) .................................. 10
Bámaca Velásquez case (Guatemala) ............................... 10
Fermín Ramírez case (Guatemala) .................................. 11
The case of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó
and the Curbaradó (Colombia) ........................................ 11
The Peace Community of San José de Apartadó
case (Colombia) ............................................................ 11
The Yean and Bosico Children case (Dominican Republic) ... 12
Compliance with Judgments ........................................... 12
Twenty-sixth special session of the Court ............................ 12
1.
2.
Palamara Iribarne case (Chile) ........................................ 13
García Asto and Ramírez Rojas case (Peru) ...................... 13
3.
4.
5.
6.
C.
13
13
14
14
Sixty-seventh regular session of the Court ........................... 15
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
D.
Request for an advisory opinion .....................................
The Mendoza Prisons case (Argentina) .............................
The Sarayaku Community case (Ecuador) ........................
Other activities .............................................................
López Álvarez case (Honduras) .......................................
The Plan de Sánchez Massacre case
(Salvador Jerónimo et al.) (Guatemala) ...........................
Blake case (Guatemala) .................................................
Liliana Ortega et al. case (Venezuela) ..............................
Case of Boyce and Joseph (Barbados) ..............................
Moiwana case (Suriname) ..............................................
The Yakye Axa Indigenous Community case (Paraguay) .....
Sarayaku Indigenous People case (Ecuador) .....................
The Mendoza Prisons case (Argentina) .............................
Fermín Ramírez case (Guatemala) ...................................
YATAMA case (Nicaragua) ..............................................
Lori Berenson case (Peru) ..............................................
Acosta Calderón case (Ecuador) ......................................
Request for advisory opinion presented by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ..................
The “Mapiripán Massacre” case (Colombia) .......................
Pilar Noriega García et al. case (Mexico) ..........................
Blanco Romero et al. case (Venezuela) ............................
López Alvarez case (Honduras) .......................................
Eloisa Barrios et al. case (Venezuela)...............................
Compliance with Judgment .............................................
General order on compliance with judgments ....................
Agreement on translations .............................................
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
18
18
19
20
20
21
21
20
21
22
22
22
22
23
Sixty-eighth regular session of the Court ............................. 23
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The Yean and Bosico case (Dominican Republic) ...............
The Serrano Cruz Sisters case (El Salvador) .....................
Fermín Ramírez case (Guatemala) ...................................
Gutiérrez Soler case (Colombia) ......................................
Luisiana Ríos et al. case
(Radio Caracas Televisión–RCTV) (Venezuela) ..................
The “Mapiripán Massacre” case (Colombia) .......................
Raxcacó Reyes case (Guatemala) ....................................
The “Pueblo Bello Massacre” case (Colombia) ...................
Acevedo Jaramillo et al. case (SITRAMUN) (Peru) ..............
López Alvarez et al. case (Honduras) ...............................
The Urso Branco Prison case (Brazil)................................
Ramírez Hinostroza et al. case (Peru) ..............................
Eloisa Barrios et al. case (Venezuela)...............................
Ituango case (Colombia) ................................................
Compliance with Judgments ...........................................
23
24
24
25
25
26
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
30
E.
Sixty-ninth regular session of the Court ............................... 30
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
F.
35
35
36
Contentious cases ......................................................... 36
Provisional measures ..................................................... 36
Submission of new contentious cases .................................. 37
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
H.
30
31
32
32
33
33
34
Monitoring compliance with judgments and implementation
Of provisional measures ....................................................... 36
A.
B.
G.
Palamara Iribarne case (Chile) ........................................
Gómez Palomino case (Peru) ..........................................
Pilar Noriega García et al. case (Mexico) ..........................
García Asto and Ramírez Rojas case (Peru) ......................
Castañeda Gutman case (Mexico) ....................................
Blanco Romero et al. case (Venezuela) ............................
Advisory Opinion OC-19 .................................................
The case of the Children and Adolescents Deprived of
Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM (Brazil) .....
Ximenes Lopes case (Brazil) ...........................................
Compliance with Judgments ...........................................
Nogueira de Carvalho v. Brazil .......................................
Servellón García et al. v. Honduras ..................................
The Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay .....
The “Dismissed Congressional Employees” v. Peru ............
Baldeón García v. Peru ...................................................
Montero Aranguren et al. v. Venezuela.............................
Vargas Areco v. Paraguay ..............................................
Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay ..............................................
Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile ...........................................
Luis Almonacid Arellano v. Chile .....................................
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
New provisional measures ................................................... 42
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Provisional measures in the “Mapiripán Massacre"
case (Colombia) ............................................................
Provisional measures in the Gutiérrez Soler case
(Colombia) ...................................................................
Provisional measures in the Ivcher Bronstein case
(Peru) .........................................................................
Provisional measures in the López Álvarez case
(Honduras) ...................................................................
Provisional measures in the Ramírez Hinostroza et al.
case (Peru)...................................................................
Provisional measures in the case of the Children and
Adolescents Deprived of liberty in the “Complexo do
Tatuapé” of FEBEM (Brazil) .............................................
Provisional measures in the Castañeda Gutman
case (Mexico) ...............................................................
Provisional measures in the Cesti Hurtado case (Peru) .......
42
43
43
44
44
45
46
46
I.
Status of matters before the Court ....................................... 47
1.
2.
III.
Contentious cases ......................................................... 47
Provisional measures ..................................................... 49
OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE COURT ................................................. 50
Presentation of the 2004 Annual Report on the Work of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights ................................................ 50
Thirty-fourth regular session of the
General Assembly of the Organization of American States ...................... 51
Joint meeting with the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ..................................... 56
First Specialized Course for State Officials on
the Use of the Inter-American System for
the Protection of Human Rights ........................................................... 56
IV.
INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS .................... 56
V.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.................................. 57
International Cooperation ................................................................... 57
Statistics of the Court ........................................................................ 58
APPENDICES (in Spanish)
I.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso James y otros
Resolución de la Corte de 28 de febrero de 2005
II.
Caso de las Hermanas Serrano Cruz
Sentencia de 1 de marzo de 2005
III.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Liliana Ortega y otras
Resolución de la Corte de 1 de marzo de 2005
IV.
Caso Huilca Tecse
Sentencia de 3 de marzo de 2005
V.
Caso de la “Masacre de Mapiripán”
Sentencia sobre las excepciones preliminares y
reconocimiento de responsabilidad de 7 de marzo de 2005
VI.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Gutiérrez Soler
Resolución de la Corte de 11 de marzo de 2005
VII.
Caso Caesar
Sentencia de 11 de marzo de 2006
VIII.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Bámaca Velásquez
Resolución de la Corte de 11 de marzo de 2005
IX.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Fermín Ramírez
Resolución de la Corte de 12 de marzo de 2005
X.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso de las Comunidades
del Jiguamiandó y del Curbaradó
Resolución de la Corte de 15 de marzo de 2005
XI.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso de la
Comunidad de Paz de San José de Apartadó
Resolución de la Corte de 15 de marzo de 2005
XII.
Caso Loayza Tamayo
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia de 3 de marzo de 2005
XIII.
Caso Bámaca Velásquez
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia de 3 de marzo de 2005
XIV.
Solicitud de Opinión Consultiva
Resolución de la Corte de 10 de mayo de 2005
XV.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso López Álvarez
Resolución de la Corte de 13 de junio de 2005
XVI.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Masacre Plan de Sánchez
(Salvador Jerónimo y otros)
Resolución de la Corte de 14 de junio de 2005
XVII.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Blake
Resolución de la Corte de 14 de junio de 2005
XVIII.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Liliana Ortega y otras
Resolución de la Corte de 14 de junio de 2005
XIX.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Boyce y Joseph
Resolución de la Corte de 14 de junio de 2005
XX.
Caso Moiwana
Sentencia de 15 de junio de 2005
XXI.
Caso de la Comunidad Indígena Yakye Axa
Sentencia de 17 de junio de 2005
XXII.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Pueblo Indígena Sarayaku
Resolución de la Corte de 17 de junio de 2005
XXIII.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso de las Penitenciarías de Mendoza
Resolución de la Corte de 18 de junio de 2005
XXIV.
Caso Fermín Ramírez
Sentencia de 20 de junio de 2005
XXV.
Caso YATAMA
Sentencia de 23 de junio de 2005
XXVI.
Caso Lori Berenson
Sentencia sobre la Solicitud de Interpretación de la Sentencia
de Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas de 23 de junio de 2005
XXVII.
Caso Acosta Calderón
Sentencia de 24 de junio de 2005
XXVIII.
Solicitud de Opinión Consultiva presentada por la
Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos
Resolución de la Corte de 24 de junio de 2005
XXIX.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso de la “Masacre de Mapiripán”
Resolución de la Corte de 27 de junio de 2005
XXX.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Pilar Noriega y otros
Resolución de la Corte de 29 de junio de 2005
XXXI.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Eloísa Barrios y otros
Resolución de la Corte de 29 de junio de 2005
XXXII.
Caso de los Niños de la Calle (Villagrán Morales y otros)
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia de 14 de junio de 2005
XXXIII.
Resolución General sobre Cumplimiento
de Sentencias de 29 de junio de 2005
XXXIV.
Caso Yean y Bosico
Sentencia de 8 de septiembre de 2005
XXXV.
Caso de las Hermanas Serrano Cruz
Sentencia sobre la Solicitud de Interpretación de la Sentencia
de Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas de 9 de septiembre de 2005
XXXVI.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Fermín Ramírez
Resolución de la Corte de 9 de septiembre de 2005
XXXVII.
Caso Gutiérrez Soler
Sentencia de 12 de septiembre de 2005
XXXVIII.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Luisiana Ríos y otros
(Radio Caracas Televisión – RCTV)
Resolución de la Corte de 12 de septiembre de 2005
XXXIX.
Caso de la “Masacre de Mapiripán”
Sentencia de 15 de septiembre de 2005
XL.
Caso Raxcacó Reyes
Sentencia de 15 de septiembre de 2005
XLI.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso López Álvarez
Resolución de la Corte de 21 de septiembre de 2005
XLII.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso de la Cárcel de Urso Branco
Resolución de la Corte de 21 de septiembre de 2005
XLIII.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Ramírez Hinostroza y otros
Resolución de la Corte de 21 de septiembre de 2005
XLIV.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Eloisa Barrios y otros
Resolución de la Corte de 22 de septiembre de 2005
XLV.
Caso Juan Humberto Sánchez
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 12 de septiembre de 2005
XLVI.
Caso Trujillo Oroza
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 12 de septiembre de 2005
XLVII.
Caso Myrna Mack Chang
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 12 de septiembre de 2005
XLVIII.
Caso Herrera Ulloa
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 12 de septiembre de 2005
XLIX.
Caso Barrios Altos
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 22 de septiembre de 2005
L.
Caso Maritza Urrutia
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 21 de septiembre de 2005
LI.
Caso Ivcher Bronstein
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 21 de septiembre de 2005
LII.
Caso “Cinco Pensionistas”
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 12 de septiembre de 2005
LIII.
Caso Palamara Iribarne
Sentencia de 22 de noviembre de 2005
LIV.
Caso Gómez Palomino
Sentencia de 22 de noviembre de 2005
LV.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Pilar Noriega García y otros
Resolución de la Corte de 24 de noviembre de 2005
LVI.
Caso García Asto y Ramírez Rojas
Sentencia de 25 de noviembre de 2005
LVII.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Castañeda Gutman
Resolución de la Corte de 25 de noviembre de 2005
LVIII.
Caso Blanco Romero y otros
Sentencia de 28 de noviembre de 2005
LIX.
Opinión Consultiva OC-19
Control de Legalidad en el Ejercicio de las Atribuciones de la Comisión
Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (arts. 41 y 44 a 51
de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos)
28 de septiembre de 2005
LX.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso de los Niños y Adolescentes
Privados de Libertad en el “Complexo do Tataupé” de FEBEM
Resolución de la Corte de 17 de noviembre de 2005
LXI.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso de los Niños y Adolescentes
Privados de Libertad en el “Complexo do Tataupé” de FEBEM
Resolución de la Corte de 30 de noviembre de 2005
LXII.
Caso Ximenes Lopes
Sentencia sobre la Excepción Preliminar de 30 de noviembre de 2005
LXIII.
Caso Baena Ricardo y otros
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 28 de noviembre de 2005
LXIV.
Caso Cantos
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 28 de noviembre de 2005
LXV.
Caso de los Hermanos Gómez Paquiyauri
Resolución sobre Cumplimiento de Sentencia
de 17 de noviembre de 2005
LXVI.
Medidas Provisionales en el caso Cesti Hurtado
Resolución del Presidente de la Corte de 21 de diciembre de 2005
LXVII.
“Síntesis Correspondiente al Ejercicio del Año 2004”
Presentación del Presidente de la Corte ante la Comisión
de Asuntos Jurídicos y Políticos de la Organización
de los Estados Americanos el 14 de abril de 2005
LXVIII.
Estado de Ratificaciones y Adhesiones a la
Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos
I.
ORIGIN, STRUCTURE AND
COMPETENCE OF THE COURT
A.
ESTABLISHMENT
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court or “the
Inter-American Court”) was created by the entry into force of the American
Convention on Human Rights or the “Pact of San José, Costa Rica” (hereinafter “the
Convention” or “the American Convention”) on July 18, 1978, when the eleventh
instrument of ratification by a Member State of the Organization of American States
(hereinafter “the OAS” or “the Organization”) was deposited. The Convention was
adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, which was
held in San José, Costa Rica, from November 7 to 22, 1969.
The two organs for the protection of human rights provided for under Article
33 of the American Convention are the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and the Court.
The function of these organs is to ensure compliance with the obligations imposed by
the Convention.
B.
ORGANIZATION
Under the terms of the Statute of the Court (hereinafter “the Statute”), the
Court is an autonomous judicial institution with its seat in San Jose, Costa Rica; its
purpose is the application and interpretation of the Convention
The Court consists of seven judges, nationals of OAS Member States, who are
elected in an individual capacity “from among jurists of the highest moral authority
and of recognized competence in the field of human rights, who possess the
qualifications required for the exercise of the highest judicial functions, in conformity
with the law of the State of which they are nationals or of the State that proposes
them as candidates” (Article 52 of the Convention). Article 8 of the Statute provides
that the Secretary General of the Organization of American States shall request the
States Parties to the Convention (hereinafter “States Parties”) to submit a list of their
candidates for the position of judge of the Court. In accordance with Article 53(2) of
the Convention, each State Party may propose up to three candidates, nationals of
the State that proposes them or of any other OAS Member State.
The judges are elected by the States Parties by secret ballot and by the vote
of an absolute majority during the OAS General Assembly immediately before the
expiry of the terms of the outgoing judges. Vacancies on the Court caused by death,
permanent disability, resignation or dismissal shall be filled, if possible, at the next
session of the OAS General Assembly (Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the Statute).
Judges shall be elected for a term of six years and may be re-elected only
once. Judges whose terms have expired shall continue to serve with regard to the
cases they have begun to hear and that are still pending (Article 54(3) of the
Convention).
2
If necessary, in order to maintain the Court’s quorum, one or more interim
judges may be appointed by the States Parties (Article 6(3) of the Statute). When
none of the judges called on to hear a case is a national of the respondent State or
when, although a judge is a national of the respondent State, he excuses himself
from hearing the case, that State may appoint a judge ad hoc; States have taken
advantage of this possibility in numerous cases before the Court.
States parties to a case are represented in the proceedings before the Court
by the agents they designate (Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure) and the
Commission is represented by the delegates that it appoints for this purpose. Under
the 2001 reform to the rules of procedure, the representatives of the alleged victim
may submit autonomously a brief with requests, arguments and evidence, and also
take part in the different proceedings and procedural stages before the Court.
The judges are at the disposal of the Court, which holds as many regular
sessions a year as may be necessary for the proper discharge of its functions.
Currently, the Court holds four regular sessions each year. Special sessions may
also be called by the President of the Court or at the request of the majority of the
judges. Although the judges are not required to reside at the seat of the Court, the
President shall render his service on a permanent basis (Article 16 of the Statute).
The President and Vice President are elected by the judges for a period of two
years and may be reelected (Article 12 of the Statute).
There is a Permanent Commission of the Court composed of the President,
the Vice President and any other judges that the President considers appropriate,
according to the needs of the Court. The Court may also create other commissions
for specific matters (Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure).
The Secretariat functions under the direction of a Secretary, elected by the
Court (Article 14 of the Statute) and a Deputy Secretary (Article 14 of the Statute).
C.
COMPOSITION
The following judges, listed in order of precedence, sat on the Court in
2005:
Sergio García Ramírez (Mexico), President;
Alirio Abreu Burelli (Venezuela), Vice President;
Oliver Jackman (Barbados);
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil);
Cecilia Medina Quiroga (Chile);
Manuel E. Ventura Robles (Costa Rica); and
Diego García-Sayán (Peru).
The Secretary of the Court is Pablo Saavedra Alessandri (Chile) and the
Deputy Secretary is Emilia Segares Rodríguez (Costa Rica).
Respondent States have exercised their right to appoint a judge ad hoc in
eleven cases that are pending before the Court (Article 55 of the Convention). The
3
following is the list of the judges ad hoc and the cases for which they were appointed
in 2005:
Ernesto Rey Cantor
Jaime Enrique Granados Peña
Javier de Belaunde
López de Romaña
Juan Carlos Esguerra Portocarrero
Alejandro Sánchez Garrido
Hernán Salgado Pesantes
Arturo Herrador Sandoval
Gustavo Zafra Roldán
Ramón Fogel Pedroso
Alejandro Montiel Argüello
Alejandro Montiel Argüello
Jorge Santistevan de Noriega
D.
Gutierrez Soler case (Colombia)
Ituango case (Colombia)
Acevedo Jaramillo et al. case (Peru)
The “Pueblo Bello Massacre” case(Colombia)
Raxcacó Reyes case (Guatemala)
Acosta Calderón case (Ecuador)
Fermín Ramírez case (Guatemala)
The “Mapiripán Massacre” case (Colombia)
The Yakye Axa Indigenous Community case
(Paraguay)
The Serrano Cruz Sisters case (El Salvador)
YATAMA case (Nicaragua)
García Asto and Ramírez Rojas case (Peru)
JURISDICTION
The Convention confers contentious and advisory functions on the Court. The
first function involves the power to decide cases in which it is alleged that one of the
States Parties has violated the Convention and the second function involves the
power of the Member States of the Organization to request that the Court interpret
the Convention or “other treaties concerning the protection of Human Rights in the
American States”. Within their spheres of competence, the organs of the OAS
mentioned in its Charter may also consult the Court.
1.
Contentious function: this function enables the Court to determine whether
a States has incurred international responsibility for having violated any of the rights
embodied or established in the American Convention on Human Rights.
The
contentious competence of the Court is regulated in Article 62 of the American
Convention which establishes:
1.
A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or
adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it
recognizes as binding, ipso facto and not requiring special agreement, the
jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or
application of this Convention.
2.
Such declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of
reciprocity, for a specified period, or for specific cases. It shall be presented to
the Secretary General of the Organization, who shall transmit copies thereof to
the other member states of the Organization and to the Secretary of the
Court.
3.
The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the
interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are
submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have
recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the
preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.
4
According to Article 61(1) of the Convention “[o]nly the States Parties and the
Commission shall have the right to submit a case to the Court.”
Article 63(1) of the Convention contains the following provision concerning
the Court's judgments:
If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom
protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be
ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also
rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that
constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair
compensation be paid to the injured party.
Paragraph 2 of Article 68 of the Convention provides that: “[t]hat part of a
judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country
concerned in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of
judgments against the State.”
The judgments rendered by the Court are “final and not subject to appeal.”
In “case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court
shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made
within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment” (Article 67 of the
Convention). The States Parties “undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court
in any case to which they are parties” (Article 68 of the Convention).
The Court submits a report on its work to the General Assembly at each
regular session, and it “[s]hall specify, in particular, the cases in which a State has
not complied with its judgments” (Article 65 of the Convention).
Twenty-one States Parties have recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the
Court. They are: Costa Rica, Peru, Venezuela, Honduras, Ecuador, Argentina,
Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, Suriname, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, Paraguay,
Bolivia, El Salvador, Haiti, Brazil, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Barbados.
The status of ratifications of and accessions to the Convention can be found at
the end of this report (Appendix 68).
2.
Advisory function: this function enables the Court to respond to
consultations by Member States of the OAS or this Organization’s organs, in the
terms of Article 64 of the Convention, which stipulates:
1.
The member states of the Organization may consult the Court
regarding the interpretation of this Convention or of other treaties concerning
the protection of Human Rights in the American states. Within their spheres of
competence, the organs listed in Chapter X of the Charter of the Organization
of American States, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, may in like
manner consult the Court.
2.
The Court, at the request of a member state of the Organization, may
provide that state with opinions regarding the compatibility of any of its
domestic laws with the aforesaid international instruments.
5
The right to request an advisory opinion is not limited to the States Parties to
the Convention. Any OAS Member State may request such an opinion. The OAS
Member States are: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize,
Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominica, the Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, the United
States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela.
The advisory jurisdiction of the Court enhances the Organization's capacity to
deal with questions arising from the application of the Convention, because it
enables the organs of the OAS to consult the Court, within their spheres of
competence.
3.
Provisional measures: the Court may adopt any measures it deems
pertinent in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid
irreparable damage to persons, both in cases which the Court is hearing and in
matters not yet submitted to it, at the request of the Inter-American Commission.
Article 63(2) of the Convention stipulates that:
In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid
irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional
measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With
respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of
the Commission.
E.
BUDGET
Article 72 of the Convention provides that “the Court shall draw up its own
budget and submit it for approval to the General Assembly through the General
Secretariat. The latter may not introduce any changes in it”. In accordance with
Article 26 of its Statute, the Court administers its own budget. The 2005 budget of
the Court was US$1,391,300.00 (one million three hundred and ninety-one thousand
three hundred United States dollars).
At its thirty-fifth regular session held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United
States, from June 5 to 7, 2005, the General Assembly of the Organization of
American States adopted the Court’s budget for 2006 in the amount of
US$1,391,300.00 (one million three hundred and ninety-one thousand three hundred
United States dollars).
F.
RELATIONS WITH SIMILAR REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The Court has close institutional links with the Inter-American Commission.
These ties have been strengthened through meetings between the members of the
two bodies, held on the recommendation of the General Assembly (infra III). The
Court also maintains close relations with the Inter-American Institute of Human
Rights, established under an agreement between the Government of Costa Rica and
the Court, which entered into force on November 17, 1980. The Institute is an
autonomous, international academic institution, with a global, interdisciplinary
approach to the teaching, research and promotion of human rights. The Court also
6
maintains institutional relations with the European Court of Human Rights, created
by the European Convention on Human Rights and established by the Council of
Europe with similar functions to those of the Inter-American Court.
II.
JURISDICTIONAL AND ADVISORY
ACTIVITIES OF THE COURT
A.
Sixty-sixth Regular Session of the Court
The Court held its sixty-sixth Regular Session from February 28 to March 15,
2005,1 at its seat in San Jose, Costa Rica, with the following members: Judge Sergio
García Ramírez (Mexico), President; Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli (Venezuela), Vice
President; Judge Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
(Brazil); Judge Cecilia Medina Quiroga (Chile); Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles
(Costa Rica), and Judge Diego García Sayán (Peru). The following judges ad hoc also
participated in the session: Alejandro Montiel Argüello, appointed by the State of El
Salvador for the Serrano Cruz Sisters case, and by the State of Nicaragua for the
YATAMA case; Ramón Fogel Pedroso, appointed by the State of Paraguay for the
Yakye Axa Indigenous Community case; Gustavo Zafra Roldán, appointed by the
State of Colombia for the “Mapiripán Massacre” case; and Ernesto Rey Cantor,
appointed by the State of Colombia for the Gutiérrez Soler case. Also present were
the Secretary of the Court Pablo Saavedra Alessandri (Chile) and the Deputy
Secretary, Emilia Segares Rodríguez (Costa Rica). During this session, the Court
considered the following matters
1.
James et al. case (Trinidad and Tobago): Provisional Measures. On
February 28, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case
(Appendix 1) in which, among other matters, it decided to lift the provisional
measures ordered by the Court in favor of Anthony Jonson on May 27, 1999, and to
call upon the State to maintain all necessary measures to protect the lives and
personal integrity of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Garcia, Darrin Roger Thomas,
Haniff Hilaire, Denny Baptiste, Wilberforce Bernard, Naresh Boodram, Clarence
Charles, Phillip Chotalal, George Constantine, Rodney Davis, Natasha De Leon,
Mervyn Edmund, Alfred Frederick, Nigel Mark, Wayne Matthews, Steve Mungroo,
Vijay Mungroo, Wilson Prince, Martin Reid, Noel Seepersad, Gangadeen Tahaloo,
Keiron Thomas, Samuel Winchester, Peter Benjamin, Kevin Dial, Andrew Dottin, Amir
Mowlah, Allan Phillip, Krishendath Seepersad, Narine Sooklal, Mervyn Parris, Francis
Mansingh, Balkissoon Roodal, Sheldon Roach, Arnold Ramlogan, Beemal Ramnarace
and Takoor Ramcharan.
2.
The Serrano Cruz Sisters case (El Salvador): Merits, Reparations and
Costs. On March 1, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and
merits in this case (Appendix 2) deciding that the State of El Salvador had violated
the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection)
of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation
to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz
and their next of kin, and also Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the
1
The European Union was the main source of financing for the sixty-sixth Regular Session.
7
Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the
detriment of the next of kin of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz.
Also, in the third operative paragraph of the judgment, the Court decided
“[n]ot [to] rule on the alleged violations of the rights of the family, the right to a
name, and the rights of the child, embodied in Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the
American Convention on Human Rights, respectively. Also, in the fourth operative
paragraph, the Court’s judgment decided “not [...to] rule on the alleged violation of
the right to life embodied in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano
Cruz.”
With regard to reparations, the Court decided that the State of El Salvador
should: carry out an effective investigation into the reported facts in this case,
identify and punish those responsible and conduct a genuine search for the victims;
eliminate all the obstacles and mechanisms de facto and de jure, which prevent
compliance with these obligations in this case, so that it uses all possible measures,
either through the criminal proceedings or by adopting other appropriate measures;
and publicize the result of the criminal proceedings. The Court also decided a series
of measures that the State should adopt in order to determine the whereabouts of
Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, and also that it should organize a public act
acknowledging responsibility and in reparation to the victims and their next of kin,
and publish specific part of the Court’s judgment in the official gazette and in
another widely-distributed national newspaper.
It also decided that the State should designate a day dedicated to the children
who disappeared during the internal armed conflict for different reasons, and provide
free of charge, the medical and psychological treatment required by the next of kin
of the victims and by Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, should they be found alive.
The Court also established the compensation that the State should pay for the
pecuniary damage caused to the victims and their next of kin and established the
amounts that the State should pay for the costs and expenses generated in the
domestic sphere and in the international proceedings before the inter-American
system for the protection of human rights.
Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his dissenting opinion on the
third and fourth operative paragraphs, Judge Ventura Robles informed the Court of
his dissenting opinion on the third operative paragraph, and Judge ad hoc Montiel
Argüello informed the Court of his dissenting opinion.
3.
Liliana Ortega et al. case (Venezuela): Provisional Measures. On March 1,
2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix 3)
in which, among other matters, it decided to lift the provisional measures ordered by
the Court in favor of Yris Medina Cova and Carmen Alicia Mendoza in its order of
November 27, 2002; it reiterated its orders of February 21, 2003, December 2,
2003, and May 4, 2004, and it called upon the State to maintain and adopt the
necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of Liliana Ortega,
Hilda Páez (Gilda Páez), Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano (Lizcano) and Alicia de
González.
8
4.
Huilca Tecse case (Peru): Merits, Reparations and Costs. On March 3,
2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and merits in this case
(Appendix 4) and decided to admit the acquiescence submitted by the State of
Peru and to partially endorse the agreement on the methods and times for complying
with the agreement on reparations signed by the State and the representatives of
the victim and his next of kin. The Court decided that the dispute regarding the
facts, which had given rise to this case, had ceased and that, according to the terms
of the State’s acquiescence, the latter had violated the rights embodied in Articles
4(1) (Right to Life) and 16 (Freedom of Association) of the American Convention on
Human Rights, and had failed to comply with the obligation established in Article
1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Pedro Huilca Tecse; it
had also violated the rights embodied in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25
(Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and failed to
comply with the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights)
thereof, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Pedro Huilca Tecse: Martha
Flores Gutiérrez, the victim’s companion; his children, Pedro Humberto Huilca
Gutiérrez, Flor de María Huilca Gutiérrez, Katiuska Tatiana Huilca Gutiérrez, José
Carlos Huilca Flores and Indira Isabel Huilca Flores, and also Julio César Escobar
Flores.
With regard to reparations, taking into consideration the agreement on
methods and times for complying with the reparations signed by the State and the
representatives, the Court ordered, among other matters, that the Peruvian State
should: conduct an effective investigation into the facts of the case in order to
identify, prosecute and punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the extrajudicial
execution of Pedro Huilca Tecse, the result of this procedure to be published;
organize a public act acknowledging its responsibility in relation to the instant case,
make a public apology to the victim’s next of kin, and publish specific excerpts from
the Court judgment in the official gazette and in another widely-distributed national
newspaper. It also decided that the State should establish a course on human rights
and labor law to be called the “Cátedra Pedro Huilca”; recall and praise the work of
Pedro Huilca Tecse in favor of the trade union movement in Peru during the official
celebrations of May 1 (Labor Day); erect a bust in his memory, and provide
psychological care and treatment to the victim’s next of kin. Lastly the Court decided
that the State must pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the next of kin
of the victim, and also to Martha Flores Gutiérrez for pecuniary damage.
5.
The Yakye Axa Indigenous Community case (Paraguay): Merits, and
Possible Reparations and Costs. On March 4 and 5, 2005, the Court held a public
hearing, during which it heard the statements of the witnesses and the reports of the
expert witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and
the representatives of the alleged victims, and also the arguments of the parties on
the merits and possible reparations and costs in relation to this case.
6.
The “Mapiripán Massacre” case (Colombia): Preliminary Objections and
Acknowledgement of Responsibility. On March 7 and 8, 2005, the Court held a public
hearing, in order to hear the statements of the witnesses and the reports of the
expert witnesses proposed by the representatives of the next of kin of the alleged
victims, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the State of
Colombia, and also their arguments on the preliminary objections and possible
merits, reparations and costs in this case. However, at the onset of the public
9
hearing, the Colombian State acknowledged its international responsibility for the
violation of Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment),
and 7(1) and 7(2) (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention, “regarding
the facts that occurred in Mapiripán in July 1997” and withdrew the first preliminary
objection concerning the “undue application of Articles 50 and 51 of the American
Convention”.
Consequently, on March 7, 2005, the Court issued judgment on the
preliminary objections and the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the
Colombian State (Appendix 5) and decided: that the dispute concerning the
preliminary objection concerning “the undue application of Articles 50 and 51 of the
American Convention” had ceased and to admit, for all pertinent effects, the State’s
withdrawal of this first objection and its acknowledgement of international
responsibility. The Court also decided to reject the second preliminary objection
concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and to continue hearing the case in
relation to the consequences of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility
regarding the facts that had occurred and that were not encompassed by this
acknowledgement of responsibility; the alleged violations of Articles 1(1) (Obligation
to Respect Rights), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the
American Convention; and the alleged violations of Articles 19 (Rights of the Child)
and 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) of this instrument, alleged by the
representatives, and also possible reparations and costs.
Consequently, the Court continued holding the public hearing, but limited to
the aspects described in the fourth operative paragraph of the said judgment, and
heard the statements of the witnesses and an expert witness who had been
summoned and the oral arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the
representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, and the State.
7.
YATAMA case (Nicaragua): Preliminary Objections and Possible Merits,
Reparations and Costs. On March 9 and 10, 2005, during a public hearing, the Court
heard the statements of the witnesses and the reports of the expert witnesses
proposed by the representatives of the alleged victims, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights and the State of Nicaragua, as well as the arguments
of the parties on the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and
costs in this case.
8.
Gutiérrez Soler case (Colombia): Preliminary Objections and Possible
Merits, Reparations and Costs. On March 10 and 11, 2005, the Court held a public
hearing to hear the statements of the witnesses and the reports of the expert
witnesses proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim and by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, as well as the arguments of the
representatives, the Commission and the State of Colombia on the preliminary
objections and possible merits, reparations and costs. However, at the onset of the
public hearing, the Colombian State acknowledged its international responsibility for
the human rights violations committed in this case and withdrew all the preliminary
objections it had filed.
Consequently, on March 10, 2005, the Court issued an order in which it
admitted the withdrawal of all the preliminary objections filed by the State and the
acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State, and decided to
10
continue holding the public hearing convened in the President’s order of February 1,
2005, but to restrict its purpose to reparations and costs.
The Court therefore continued to hold the public hearing, but only in relation
to reparations and costs and heard the statements of the witnesses and expert
witnesses who had been convened and the arguments of the Inter-American
Commission, the representatives of the victim and the State.
Provisional Measures. On March 11, 2005, the Court issued an order on
provisional measures in this case (Appendix 6) in which, among other matters, it
decided to call upon the State to adopt the necessary measures to: (a) protect the
lives, personal integrity and personal liberty of Ricardo Gutiérrez Soler and his
family, composed of: his mother, María Elena Soler de Gutiérrez; his children, Luisa
Fernanda Gutiérrez Reyes, Paula Camila Gutiérrez Reyes, Leonardo Gutiérrez
Rubiano, Leydi Caterin Gutiérrez Peña, Sulma Tatiana Gutiérrez Rubiano, Ricardo
Alberto Gutiérrez Rubiano and Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez Rubiano; and Yaqueline
Reyes; and (b) to protect the lives, personal integrity and personal liberty of Wilson
Gutiérrez Soler and his son, Kevin Daniel Gutiérrez Niño, should they return to
Colombia.
9.
Caesar case (Trinidad and Tobago): Merits, Reparations and Costs. On
March 11, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and merits in this
case (Appendix 7) and decided that the State of Trinidad and Tobago had violated
the rights embodied in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment) of the
American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to
Respect Rights) thereof; Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American
Convention, in relation to Article 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment)
thereof; and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Articles
1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof; all to the
detriment of Winston Caesar. The Court also decided that the State had not violated
the right embodied in Article 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Convention.
With regard to reparations, the Court decided, among other matters, that the
State of Trinidad and Tobago must: pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage to
Winston Caesar; provide adequate free medical and psychological care to Mr.
Caesar; and adopt legislative or other measures to annul the Corporal Punishment
Act, and to amend Section 6 of the Constitution. The Court also decided that the
State must adopt the necessary measures to ensure that detention conditions in its
prisons were in keeping with the respective international human rights standards.
Judges García Ramírez, Jackman, Cançado Trindade and Ventura Robles
informed the Court of their separate opinions, which accompany the judgment.
10.
Bámaca Velásquez case (Guatemala): Provisional Measures. On March 11,
2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix 8)
in which, among other matters, it decided to call upon the State to maintain the
necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of the following
persons: Santiago Cabrera López, Alfonso Cabrera Viagres, María Victoria López,
Blanca Cabrera, Carmenlinda Cabrera, Teresa Aguilar Cabrera, Olga Maldonado,
Carlos Alfonso Cabrera, José León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca
Velásquez, Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, Alberta Velásquez, Rudy López Velásquez
11
and other members of the Bámaca Velásquez family who live permanently in
Guatemala: Emerita Mendoza, Wendy Pérez Álvarez, Sulni Madeli Pérez Álvarez, José
Oswaldo Pérez Álvarez, Jacobo Álvarez, José Pioquinto Álvarez, Alez Javier Álvarez,
Germán Aníbal de la Roca Mendoza, Kevin Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, Blanca Noelia
Meléndez, Aron Álvarez Mendoza and his family and other members of the family of
Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza who live permanently in Guatemala.
11.
Fermín Ramírez case (Guatemala): Provisional Measures. On March 12,
2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix 9)
in which, among other matters, it decided to ratify all the terms of the President’s
order on urgent measures of December 21, 2004, and call upon the State to adopt,
forthwith, all necessary measures to protect the live and personal integrity of Fermín
Ramírez, so as not to obstruct the processing of his case before the inter-American
system for the protection of human rights.
12.
The case of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó
(Colombia): Provisional Measures. On March 14, 2005, the Court held a public
hearing during which it heard the arguments of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures,
and the State of Colombia on the provisional measures ordered by the Court in this
case.
On March 15, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this
case (Appendix 10) in which, among other matters, it decided to reiterate to the
State that it must adopt the provisional measures ordered by the Court in favor of all
the members of the Jiguamiandó Community Council and the Curbaradó families,
and any other measures necessary to comply strictly and immediately with the
Court’s orders and to provide effective protection for the lives and personal integrity
of all the members of the Jiguamiandó Community Council and the Curbaradó
families, in the terms of the Court’s orders of March 6, 2003, and November 17,
2004.
It also decided to call upon the State: to implement all necessary measures to
ensure the protection and safety of the beneficiaries of the measures; to ensure and
implement the necessary conditions for the members of the Jiguamiandó the
Curbaradó Communities, who have been forced to move, to return to their homes or
to the “humanitarian refuge zones” established for these Communities; to grant
special protection to the “humanitarian refuge zones”; to implement the necessary
technical measures to establish continuous protection and monitoring measures in
the “humanitarian refuge zones”; to investigate the facts that gave rise to the
adoption and maintenance of the provisional measures, to identify those responsible
and impose the corresponding sanctions and, in particular, to investigate the alleged
participation of law enforcement personnel in the threats and acts of violence that
were allegedly perpetrated against the members of the Jiguamiandó and the
Curbaradó Communities, and the facts relating to the murder of Pedro Murillo.
13.
The Peace Community of San José de Apartadó case (Colombia):
Provisional Measures. On March 14, 2005, the Court held a public hearing during
which it heard the arguments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, and the State of
Colombia on the provisional measures ordered by the Court in this case.
12
On March 15, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this
case (Appendix 11) in which, among other matters, it decided to reiterate to the
State that it must adopt the provisional measures ordered by the Court in favor of all
the members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó and all necessary
measures to comply strictly and immediately with the orders of the Court to provide
effective protection for the lives and personal integrity of all the members of the
Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, in the terms of the order of the President
of the Court of October 9, 2000, and the orders of the Court of November 24, 2000,
June 18, 2002, and November 17, 2004.
It also decided to call upon the State: to implement all necessary steps to
ensure the protection and safety of the beneficiaries of the measures and to allow
them to continue living in their usual place of residence, without any type of coercion
or threat; to ensure and implement effectively the necessary conditions for the
members of the Community who have been forced to move to other regions of the
country to return to their homes; to guarantee effectively the necessary safety
conditions on the road between San José de Apartadó and Apartadó, in the Apartadó
transport terminal, and in the place known as Tierra Amarilla; to implement, in
agreement with the beneficiaries or their representatives, the technical measures to
establish adequate continuous protection and monitoring mechanisms; to investigate
the facts that gave rise to the adoption and maintenance of the provisional measures,
to identify and sanction those responsible and, in particular, to investigate the
participation of law enforcement personnel in the threats and acts of violence that
were allegedly perpetrated against the members of the Peace Community of San José
de Apartadó, and the facts related to the deaths of Luis Eduardo Guerra Guerra,
Bellanira Areiza Guzmán, Alfonso Bolívar Tuberquía, Sandra Milena Muñoz, Alejandro
Pérez Cuiles, and the children, Deiner Andrés Guerra Tuberquia, Natalia Andrea
Tuberquia Muñoz and Santiago Tuberquia Muñoz.
14.
The Yean and Bosico Children case (Dominican Republic): Preliminary
Objections and Possible Merits, Reparations and Costs. On March 14 and 15, 2005,
the Court held a public hearing during which it heard the statements of the witnesses
and the reports of the expert witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin,
and the State of the Dominican Republic, as well as the arguments on the
preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs in this case.
15.
Compliance with Judgments: During this session, the Court issued orders
on compliance with judgment in the following cases: Loayza Tamayo (Peru)
(Appendix 12) and Bámaca Velásquez (Guatemala) (Appendix 13).
B.
Twenty-sixth Special Session of the Court
From May 9 to 13, 2005,2 the Court held its twenty-sixth Special Session in
Asunción, Paraguay, with the following members: Judge Sergio García Ramírez
(Mexico), President; Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli (Venezuela), Vice President; Judge
Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil); Judge
2
The European Union was the main source of financing for the twenty-sixth Special Session.
13
Cecilia Medina Quiroga (Chile); Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles (Costa Rica); and
Judge Diego García-Sayán (Peru). Also present were the Secretary of the Court,
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri (Chile) and the Deputy Secretary, Emilia Segares
Rodríguez (Costa Rica). This was the first time that the Court had convened outside
its seat to hold public hearings and consider contentious cases, requests for advisory
opinions and provisional measures. The special session was inaugurated by an act
held in the auditorium of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay attended, among
others, by members of the supreme powers of the Republic of Paraguay and
diplomats accredited to the Paraguayan Government. During the session, the Court
considered the following matters:
1.
Palamara Iribarne case (Chile): Merits and Possible Reparations and
Costs. On May 9, 2005, the Court held a public hearing, in which it heard the
statement of a witness and the report of an expert witness proposed by the
representatives of the alleged victim and the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, as well as the arguments of the parties on the merits and possible
reparations and costs in this case.
2.
García Asto and Ramírez Rojas case (Peru): Merits and Possible
Reparations and Costs. On May 10, 2005, the Court held a public hearing, during
which it heard the statements of the witnesses proposed by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, and also the arguments of the parties on the merits
and possible reparations and costs in this case.
3.
Request for an advisory opinion: On May 10, 2005, the Court examined
and deliberated on a request for an advisory opinion presented by the State of Costa
Rica on December 10, 2004. The purpose of this request was “to determine the
compatibility of article 9(e) of the Legislative Assembly Personnel Act (Act No. 4556
of May 8, 1970) and of article 13 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act (Act No. 7135
of October 19, 1989) with the American Convention on Human Rights and other
human rights instruments.” The same day, the Court issued an order (Appendix
14) in which it decided not to consider the request for an advisory opinion presented
by the State of Costa Rica, because a response could result in an indirect ruling, via
advisory opinion, on litigious matters that had not yet been decided in the domestic
sphere, or submitted to the consideration of the Commission or the Court, and this
would run counter to the purpose and meaning of the advisory functions invested in
the Court by Article 64(2) of the American Convention.
4.
The Mendoza Prisons case (Argentina): Provisional Measures. On May 11,
2005, the Court held a public hearing, during which it heard the arguments of the
Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the beneficiaries of the
provisional measures, and the State of Argentina on the status of implementation of
the provisional measures ordered by the Court in this case.
During this public hearing, having listened to the parties’ arguments and
positions, the President of the Court invited the Commission, the representatives and
the State to present a joint proposal to ensure that the provisional measures were
extremely specific, since they were in agreement regarding their assessment of the
situation and their appraisal of the facts and the extraordinary seriousness of the
latter.
14
The same day, the representatives of the beneficiaries, the Commission and
the State signed an official document in which they expressed their agreement to
maintain the provisional measures in force and agreed “to submit to the
consideration of the Inter-American Court [... a] series of measures so that the Court
could consider the possibility of making the order of November 22, 2004, more
specific, in order to ensure the lives and physical integrity of the beneficiaries of that
order.”
5.
The Sarayaku Community case (Ecuador): Provisional Measures. On May
11, 2005, the Court held a public hearing, during which it heard the arguments of
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the representatives of the
beneficiaries of the provisional measures, and the State of Ecuador on the status of
the implementation of the provisional measures ordered by the Court in this case.
6.
Other activities: On May 12, 2005, the judges of the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights held a working meeting with the judges of the Supreme Court of
Justice of Paraguay and a cooperation agreement between the two courts was
subsequently signed. This was followed by a seminar offered by the judges of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights to judicial officials accompanied, among
others, by Justice Víctor Nuñez and the President of the Supreme Court of Justice,
Dr. Antonio Fretes, who gave a welcome address. The same day an inter-institutional
cooperation agreement was signed between the Inter-American Court and the
Judiciary Council of the Republic of Paraguay. Later, the judges of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights separated into groups of two in order to offer seminars in the
Universidad Nacional Autónoma, the Universidad Americana, and the Universidad
Católica. Cooperation agreements were signed with the Universidad Nacional
Autónoma and the Universidad Americana. The Court had already signed a similar
cooperation agreement with the Universidad Católica.
On May 13, the judges and secretaries of the Court were received by the
Presidents of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, accompanied by the leaders
of all the parties represented in both chambers. During the activity, the President of
the Court gave an address in which he referred to the establishment and evolution of
the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, as well as the current
and future challenges faced by the system. Following this activity, the judges and
secretaries of the Court were received by the Paraguayan Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Leila Rachid de Cowles; and then proceeded to the Government Palace where the
President of the Republic, Dr. Oscar Nicanor Duarte Frutos, spoke with the judges of
the Court accompanied by the secretary and the deputy secretary. Subsequently, the
judges and secretaries of the Court visited the MERCOSUR Permanent Review
Tribunal and held a working meeting with its President, Dr. José Antonio Moreno
Ruffinelli, and other tribunal officials.
15
C.
Sixty-seventh Regular Session of the Court
The Court held its sixty-seventh Regular Session from June 13 to 30, 2005,3
at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, with the following members: Judge Sergio García
Ramírez (Mexico), President; Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli (Venezuela), Vice President;
Judge Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil);
Judge Cecilia Medina Quiroga (Chile); Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles (Costa Rica);
and Judge Diego García-Sayán (Peru). The following judges ad hoc also participated
in the session: Alejandro Montiel Argüello, appointed by the State of Nicaragua for
the YATAMA case; Ramón Fogel Pedroso, appointed by the State of Paraguay for the
Yakye Axa Indigenous Community case; Arturo Herrador Sandoval, appointed by the
State of Guatemala for the Fermín Ramírez case; and Hernán Salgado Pesantes,
appointed by the State of Ecuador for the Acosta Calderón case. Also present were
the Secretary of the Court, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri (Chile) and the Deputy
Secretary, Emilia Segares Rodríguez (Costa Rica). During this session, the Court
considered the following matters:
1.
López Álvarez case (Honduras): Provisional Measures. On June 13,
2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix
15) in which, among other matters, it decided to call upon the State to adopt
forthwith the necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of
Alfredo López Álvarez, Teresa Reyes Reyes and Gregoria Flores Martínez, who
would appear as witnesses before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at the
public hearing on the López Álvarez case to be held starting on June 28, 2005.
2.
The Plan de Sánchez Massacre case (Salvador Jerónimo et al.)
(Guatemala): Provisional Measures. On June 14, 2005, the Court issued an order
on Provisional measures in this case (Appendix 16) in which it decided to lift the
provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court in its order of September
8, 2004, in favor of Salvador Jerónimo Sánchez, Prudencia Cajbon, Faustina Tojom,
Juan Manuel Jerónimo and Buenaventura Jerónimo.
3.
Blake case (Guatemala): Provisional Measures. On June 14, 2005, the
Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix 17) in which
it decided lift and consider concluded the provisional measures ordered by the InterAmerican Court in its orders of September 22, 1995, April 18, 1997, August 18,
2000, June 2, 2001, June 6, 2003, and November 17, 2004, in favor of Floridalma
Rosalina López Molina, Víctor Hansel Morales López, Edgar Ibal Martínez López and
Sylvia Patricia Martínez López.
4.
Liliana Ortega et al. case (Venezuela): Provisional Measures. On June 14,
2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix 18)
in which it decided, inter alia, to call upon the State to maintain all necessary
measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of Liliana Ortega, Hilda Páez
(Gilda Páez), Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano (Lizcano) and Alicia de González,
required in its order of November 27, 2002, and reiterated in its orders of February
21, 2003, December 2, 2003, May 4, 2004, and March 1, 2005, and also to reiterate
to the State that it should allow the beneficiaries or their representatives to take part
3
The European Union was the main source of financing for the sixty-seventh Regular Session.
16
in planning and implementing the protection measures and, in general, keep them
informed on progress in their execution.
5.
Case of Boyce and Joseph (Barbados): Provisional Measures. On June 14,
2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix
19), in which it decided, inter alia, to ratify the orders of the President on urgent
measures of February 11, 2005 and of May 20, 2005, in which the State was
required to expand the provisional measures ordered to protect the lives and
integrity of Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins; and to require the State to inform
the Court about the compliance with such measures.
6.
Moiwana case (Suriname): Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and
Costs. On June 15, 2005, the Court issued judgment on preliminary objections,
merits, reparations and costs in this case (Appendix 20). It decided to reject the
preliminary objections filed by the State and declared that the State of Suriname had
violated the rights embodied in Articles 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment); 22
(Freedom of Movement and Residence); 21 (Right to Property); 8(1) (Right to a Fair
Trial); and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights,
and had failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to
Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the Moiwana
community.
With regard to reparations, among other matters, the Court decided that the
State should: investigate the facts of the case and identify, prosecute and punish
those responsible; recover the remains of the members of the Moiwana community
who had died during the events of November 29, 1986, and deliver them to the
surviving members of the Moiwana community; adopt the legislative, administrative
and any other measures necessary to ensure the right to property of the members of
the Moiwana community with regard to their traditional territories, from which they
had been expelled, and ensure the use and enjoyment of these lands, measures that
should include the creation of an effective mechanism to delimit, demarcate and
provide title to these traditional territories; ensure the safety of the members of the
Moiwana community who decided to return to the village of Moiwana; establish a
community development fund; organize an act to make a public apology and
acknowledge international responsibility; build a monument and place it in an
appropriate public place; and pay compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damages to the members of the Moiwana community, as well as expenses.
Judge Cançado Trindade and Judge Medina Quiroga informed the Court of
their concurring opinions. Judge García Ramírez endorsed the opinion of Judge
Medina Quiroga. These opinions accompany the judgment.
7.
The Yakye Axa Indigenous Community case (Paraguay): Merits,
Reparations and Costs. On June 17, 200, the Court issued judgment on merits,
reparations and merits in this case (Appendix 21) and decided that the State of
Paraguay had violated the rights embodied in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25
(Judicial Protection) and 21 (Right to Property) of the American Convention on
Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2
(Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the Yakye Axa
indigenous community. It also declared that the State had violated the right
embodied in Article 4(1) (Right to Life) of the American Convention on Human
17
Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the
detriment of the members of this community. Lastly, the Court declared that it had
insufficient probative elements to prove the violation of the right embodied in Article
4(1) (Right to Life) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of
sixteen members of the community who allegedly died owing to the physical
conditions in which they lived.
With regard to reparations, among other matters, the Court decided that the
Paraguayan State should: identify the traditional territory of the members of the
Yakye Axa indigenous community and grant it to them without cost; provide the
basic goods and services necessary for subsistence while the community was without
land; establish a fund exclusively for acquiring this land; establish a community
development fund and program; adopt the legislative, administrative and any other
measures necessary to guarantee the effective enjoyment of the right to property of
the members of the indigenous community; organize a public event to acknowledge
its responsibility; publish specific parts of the Court’s judgment in the official gazette
and in another widely-distributed national newspaper and finance their broadcasting
by radio; and pay compensation for pecuniary damage, costs and expenses.
Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli informed the Court of his partially dissenting
opinion, Judges Antônio A. Cançado Trindade and Manuel E. Ventura Robles informed
the Court of their joint dissenting opinion, and Judge ad hoc Ramón Fogel Pedroso
informed the Court of his partially concurring and partially dissenting opinion. These
opinions accompany the judgment.
8.
Sarayaku Indigenous People case (Ecuador): Provisional Measures. On
June 17, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case
(Appendix 22) in which, among other matters, it decided to reiterate to the State
that it should maintain the measures adopted in favor of all the members of the
Sarayaku Indigenous People in the terms of the Court’s order of July 6, 2004, and
that it should order, forthwith, any necessary measures:
a)
To comply strictly and immediately with the measures ordered by the
Inter-American Court to protect effectively the lives, personal integrity
and freedom of movement of all the members of the Sarayaku
Indigenous People;
b)
To enable the members of the Sarayaku Indigenous People to carry out
their activities and use the natural resources that exist in the territory
where they are settled; specifically, the State must adopt those
measures tending to avoid immediate and irreparable damage to their
lives and personal integrity as a result of the activities of third parties
who live near the community or who exploit the natural resources
within the community. In particular, the State must remove the
explosive material placed in the territory where the Sarayaku
Indigenous People are settled, if this has not already been done;
c)
To ensure the protection and safety of the beneficiaries of these
measures, without any type of coercion or threat;
18
d)
To ensure the freedom of movement of the members of the Sarayaku
Indigenous People, especially on the Borbonaza River;
e)
To maintain the airstrip located on the land where the Sarayaku
Indigenous People are settled to ensure that this means of transport is
not suspended;
f)
To investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption and maintenance
of these provisional measures, and the threats and acts of intimidation
against some of the members of the Sarayaku Indigenous People,
especially Marlon Santi, in order to identify those responsible and
impose the corresponding sanctions, in keeping with the parameters
established in the American Convention;
g)
To continue allowing the beneficiaries of the provisional measures or
their representatives to take part in planning and implementing these
measures, so as to identify those that are most appropriate for the
protection and safety of the members of the Sarayaku Indigenous
People and, in general, to keep them informed about progress in the
adoption of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court; and
h)
To inform the neighboring indigenous communities about the meaning
and scope of the provisional measures for both the State and third
parties, in order to promote a climate of peaceful coexistence.
Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his concurring
opinion, which accompanies the order.
9.
The Mendoza Prisons case (Argentina): Provisional Measures. On June
18, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix
23) in which, among other matters, it decided to reiterate to the State that it must
maintain the provisional measures adopted in the terms of the Court’s order of
November 22, 2004, and that it should order, forthwith, any necessary measures to
provide effective protection for the lives and integrity of all those persons deprived of
their liberty in the Mendoza Provincial Prison and in the Gustavo André Unit, in
Lavalle, as well as anyone inside the prisons. The Court also decided that the State
must adopt the measures contained in the agreement signed on May 11, 2005, by
the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the beneficiaries of the
measures, and the State.
Judges Sergio García Ramírez and Antônio A. Cançado Trindade informed the
Court of their concurring opinions, which accompany the order.
10.
Fermín Ramírez case (Guatemala): Merits, Reparations and Costs. On
June 20, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and costs in this
case (Appendix 24) and decided that the State of Guatemala had violated the
rights embodied in the following articles of the American Convention on Human
Rights: 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) (Right to a Fair Trial), in relation to Article 1(1)
(Obligation to Respect Rights); 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), in relation to
Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects); 4(6) (Right to apply for a pardon or commutation
of sentence), in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights); 9 (Freedom
from Ex Post Facto Laws) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects); and 5(1) and 5(2) (Right
19
to Humane Treatment), in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights); all
to the detriment of Fermín Ramírez. It also declared that the State had not violated
the right embodied in Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, to
the detriment of Fermín Ramírez.
With regard to reparations, the Court ordered the Guatemalan State: to hold
a new trial for Fermín Ramírez, within a reasonable time, that satisfied the
requirements of due legal process, with full guarantees of a hearing and a defense
for the accused and, should he be found guilty of the crime of murder, which was
classified as a crime when the facts he is accused of occurred, the penal laws in force
at that time should be applied, excluding the reference to “dangerousness”; to annul
the part of article 132 of the Guatemalan Penal Code that refers to the
“dangerousness” of the accused, adapting it to the American Convention, as
stipulated in its Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects), in order to ensure respect for
freedom from ex post facto laws, embodied in Article 9 thereof; to abstain from
executing Fermín Ramírez, whatever the result of the trial; to adopt the necessary
legislative and administrative measures to establish a procedure ensuring that any
person condemned to death has the right to apply for a pardon or commutation of
sentence with rules that establish the authority empowered to grant this, and the
respective procedure and steps (and the death penalty should not be carried out
while the decision is pending on the pardon or commutation applied for); to provide
Fermín Ramírez with appropriate treatment, including medication; to adopt the
necessary measures to adapt prison conditions to international human rights norms;
and to reimburse expenses.
Judge Sergio García Ramírez and Judge ad hoc Arturo Herrador Sandoval
informed the Court of their separate opinions, which accompany the judgment.
11.
YATAMA case (Nicaragua): Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and
Costs. On June 23, 2005, the Court issued judgment on the preliminary objections,
merits, reparations and costs in this case (Appendix 25). It decided to reject the
five objections filed by the State of Nicaragua and declared that the State had
violated, to the detriment of the candidates proposed by YATAMA to take part in the
2000 municipal elections, the rights embodied in Article 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), in
relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights); and Articles 25(1) (Judicial
Protection), 23 (Right to Participate in Government) and 24 (Right to Equal
Protection), in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2
(Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention on Human Rights.
With regard to reparations, the Court ordered the Nicaraguan State: to
publish the entire judgment on the State’s official website and specific parts of it in
the official gazette and in another widely-distributed national newspaper; to
broadcast certain parts of the judgment on a radio station with wide coverage on the
Atlantic Coast and in the Spanish, Miskito, Sumo, Rama and English languages; to
adopt the necessary legislative measures to establish a simple, prompt and effective
judicial recourse that permits any decisions of the Supreme Electoral Council that
affect human rights, such as the right to participate in Government, to be monitored,
and to repeal the norms that prevent filing this recourse; to reform Electoral Act No.
331 of 2000, in order to regulate clearly the consequences of failing to comply with
the requirements for participating in the elections, the procedures that the Supreme
Electoral Council must observe when deciding on non-compliance, and the right of
20
those persons whose participation is affected by a decision of the State; to reform
the regulation of the requirements established in Electoral Law No. 331 of 2000 that
have been declared in violation of the American Convention on Human Rights, and to
adopt the necessary measures to allow the members of the indigenous and ethnic
communities to take part in the electoral processes effectively and taking into
consideration their traditions, practice and customs. The Court also decided the
compensation that the State must pay for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and
also the amount that it must reimburse for costs and expenses in the domestic
sphere and in the international proceedings before the inter-American system for the
protection of human rights.
Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello informed the Court of his dissenting opinion
and Judges García Ramírez, Jackman, Cançado Trindade and García-Sayán informed
the Court of their separate opinions. These opinions accompany the judgment.
12.
Lori Berenson case (Peru): Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits,
Reparations and Costs. On June 23, 2005, the Court issued judgment on the request
for interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs in this case
(Appendix 26) and decided to reject as inadmissible the request for interpretation
of this judgment of November 25, 2004, filed by the representatives of the victim
and her next of kin, and to continue monitoring compliance with it.
13.
Acosta Calderón case (Ecuador): Merits, Reparations and Costs. On June
24, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and merits in this case
(Appendix 27) and decided that the State of Ecuador had violated the rights
embodied in Articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(5) and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty); 25
(Judicial Protection); and 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) (Right to a Fair
Trial) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect
Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Rigoberto Acosta Calderón; and that it had failed
to comply with the obligation established in Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the
Convention, in relation to Article 7(5) (Right to Personal Liberty) thereof, also to the
detriment of Rigoberto Acosta Calderón.
With regard to reparations, among other matters, the Court ordered the State
of Ecuador: to publish specific parts of the judgment in the official gazette and in
another widely-distributed national newspaper; to eliminate the criminal record of
Rigoberto Acosta Calderón from the public records; and to pay compensation for
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to Mr. Acosta Calderón, and reimburse costs
and expense.
Judges Cançado Trindade and Ventura Robles informed the Court of their
separate opinions, which accompany the judgment.
14.
Request for Advisory Opinion presented by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights: On June 24, 2005, the Court issued an order
(Appendix 28) on the request for an advisory opinion presented by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights on April 20, 2004, concerning the
interpretation of Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights), 2 (Domestic Legal
Effects), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial),
25 (Judicial Protection) and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in light
of the provisions of Article 29 (Restrictions regarding Interpretation) of the
21
Convention, and of the corresponding protections under the American Declaration of
the Rights and Duties of Man, for the Court to issue an opinion on whether it was in
keeping with these provisions when “States adopted legislative and other measures
that denied those condemned to death access to judicial recourses or other effective
recourses to contest the punishment imposed, based on grounds such as [the
obligatory nature of the death penalty,] delays, the conditions under which the
person was detained, or the fact that the person had a petition pending before the
inter-American human rights system.” In the order, the Court decided not to respond
to the request because it had already established its point of view on the points
outlined therein.
15.
The “Mapiripán Massacre” case (Colombia): Provisional Measures. On
June 27, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case
(Appendix 29) in which, among other matters, it decided to ratify the President’s
order on urgent measures of February 4, 2005; to call upon the State to adopt
forthwith the necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of the
following persons and their next of kin: Carmen Johana Jaramillo Giraldo, Esther
Pinzón López, Sara Paola Pinzón López, María Teresa Pinzón López, Yur Mary Herrera
Contreras, Zully Herrera Contreras, Maryuri Caicedo Contreras, Nadia Marina
Valencia Sanmiguel, Yinda Adriana Valencia Sanmiguel, Johana Marina Valencia
Sanmiguel, Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez Contreras, Roland
Andrés Valencia Sanmiguel, Ronald Mayiber Valencia Sanmiguel, Luis Guillermo
Pérez, Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo, Marina San Miguel Duarte, Viviana Barrera Cruz,
Luz Mery Pinzón López and Mariela Contreras Cruz; and to call upon the State to
investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption of these provisional measures
and, if applicable, identify those responsible and impose the corresponding sanctions.
16.
Pilar Noriega García et al. case (Mexico): Provisional Measures. On June
29, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix
30) in which, among other matters, it decided to call upon the State: to maintain the
necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of Pilar Noriega
García, Bárbara Zamora López, Leonel Rivero Rodríguez, Eusebio Ochoa López and
Irene Alicia Plácido Evangelista, and of Carmen, Jesús, Luz María, Eusebio,
Guadalupe, Ismael, Elia, Estela, Roberto, Juan Carlos, Ignacio and Agustín, all Ochoa
y Plácido; to expand, forthwith, the provisional measures ordered to protect the lives
and personal integrity of the next of kin of Leonel Rivero Rodríguez; and to
investigate the facts that gave rise to the expansion of the said provisional
measures, in order to identify those responsible and impose the corresponding
sanctions.
17.
Blanco Romero et al. case (Venezuela): Merits and Possible Reparations
and Costs. On June 27 and 28, 2005, the Court held a public hearing, during which it
heard the statements of the witnesses and the reports of the expert witnesses
proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the
representatives of the alleged victims, and also the arguments of the Commission,
the representatives of the alleged victims, and the State of Venezuela, on the merits
and possible reparations and costs in this case. Towards the end of the public
hearing, the Venezuelan State acknowledged its international responsibility for the
human rights violations committed in this case. Consequently, on June 28, 2005,
the Court issued an order in which it decided to admit the State’s acknowledgement
22
of international responsibility, to consider that the dispute concerning the facts had
ceased, and to continue processing the case.
18.
López Alvarez case (Honduras): Merits and Possible Reparations and
Costs. On June 28 and 29, 2005, the Court held a public hearing, in which it heard
the statements of three witnesses and an expert witness proposed by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights and by the representatives of the alleged
victim and the next of kin. The Court also heard the final oral arguments on merits
and possible reparations and costs of the Inter-American Commission, the
representatives, and the State in this case.
19.
Eloisa Barrios et al. case (Venezuela): Provisional Measures. On June
2005, the Court held a public hearing during which it heard the arguments of
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the representatives of
beneficiaries of the provisional measures, and the State of Venezuela concerning
provisional measures ordered in favor of Eloisa Barrios and others in this case.
29,
the
the
the
The same day, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this
case (Appendix 31) in which, among other matters, it decided: to reiterate the
decisions contained in its order of November 23, 2004, concerning the measures
that should be adopted to protect effectively the lives and personal integrity of
Eloisa Barrios, Inés Barrios, Beatriz Barrios and Carolina García and of Pablo
Solórzano, Caudy Barrios, Oscar Barrios, Jorge Barrios and Juan Barrios, and to call
upon the State to ensure that the measures of protection were not provided by the
police units that, according to the beneficiaries, were involved in the reported facts.
It also decided to call upon the State: to expand, forthwith, all necessary
measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Maritza Barrios; to provide the
necessary permanent surveillance measures to provide security to the homes of
Maritza Barrios and Juan Barrios; to ensure and implement effectively the necessary
conditions for the members of the Barrios family, who have been forced to move to
other parts of the country, to return to their homes; to continue and conclude as
soon as possible, the investigation into the facts that gave rise to the adoption and
maintenance of these provisional measures, in order to identify those responsible
and impose the corresponding sanctions, including the investigation into the facts
that have occurred since the Inter-American Court issued the order of November 23,
2004; and to conclude, as soon as possible, the investigation into the facts related to
the death of the child, Rigoberto Barrios, in order to identify and sanction those
responsible, and also to investigate the alleged participation of law enforcement
personnel in this act. Regarding the death of the child, Rigoberto Barrios, it
expressed its concern that this had occurred while the provisional measures were in
force and also with regard to the circumstances.
20.
Compliance with Judgment: During this session, the Court issued an
order on compliance with judgment in the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales
et al.) v. Guatemala (Appendix 32).
21.
General order on compliance with judgments: On June 29, 2005, the
Court issued a general order on compliance with judgment (Appendix 33) in which
it decided not to continue requiring the States to present information on compliance
with the respective judgments, once the Court had decided that Articles 65 of the
23
American Convention on Human Rights and 30 of the Court’s Statute were applicable
in cases of non-compliance with judgments, and had included the relevant
information in its Annual Report for the consideration of the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States. If the respective State did not subsequently
provide the Court with evidence that it had complied with the pending operative
paragraphs of the judgment, the Court would continue to include information on this
non-compliance each year submitting its Annual Report to the General Assembly.
This order was notified to the General Assembly of the Organization of American
States, the President of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American
States, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, the Member
States of the Organization of American States, the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, and the agents of the States and the victims or their representatives
in cases being monitored for compliance with judgment by the Inter-American Court.
22.
Agreement on translations: On June 22, 2005, the Court issued an order in
which agreed to suspend the translation of all its decisions issued since January 1,
2005, until it has sufficient financial resources to do it, and consequently divulge
such decisions in the language in which they were made.
D.
Sixty-eighth Regular Session of the Court
The Court held its sixty-eighth Regular Session from September 7 to 24,
20054 at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, with the following members: Judge Sergio
García Ramírez (Mexico), President; Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli (Venezuela), Vice
President; Judge Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
(Brazil); Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles (Costa Rica) and Judge Diego GarcíaSayán (Peru). Judge Cecilia Medina Quiroga (Chile) did not take part in this regular
session owing to circumstances beyond her control. The following judges ad hoc
also participated in the session: Ernesto Rey Cantor, appointed by the State of
Colombia for the Gutiérrez Soler case; Gustavo Zafra Roldán, appointed by the
State of Colombia for the “Mapiripán Massacre” case; Alejandro Sánchez Garrido,
appointed by the State of Guatemala for the Raxcacó Reyes case; Alejandro Montiel
Argüello, appointed by the State of El Salvador for the Serrano Cruz Sisters case;
Juan Carlos Esguerra Portocarrero, appointed by the State of Colombia for the
“Pueblo Bello Massacre” case; Javier de Belaunde López de Romaña, appointed by
the State of Peru for the Acevedo Jaramillo et al. case; and Jaime Enrique
Granados Peña, appointed by the State of Colombia for the Ituango case. Also
present were the Secretary of the Court, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri (Chile) and the
Deputy Secretary, Emilia Segares Rodríguez (Costa Rica). During this session the
Court considered the following matters among others:
1.
The Yean and Bosico case (Dominican Republic): Preliminary
Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. On September 8, 2005, the Court issued
judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs in this case
(Appendix 34). It decided to reject the three preliminary objections filed by the
State, and declared that the State of the Dominican Republic had violated the
rights embodied in Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 18 (Right to a Name),
20 (Right to Nationality) and 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the American
4
The European Union was the main source of financing for the sixty-eighth Regular Session.
24
Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 19 (Rights of the Child) and also
in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of
the children, Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico. The Court also declared that the State
had violated the right embodied in Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), in
relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the
detriment of Leonidas Oliven Yean, Tiramen Bosico Cofi and Teresa Tucent Mena.
With regard to reparations, among other matters, the Court ordered the
State: to publish specific parts of the judgment in the official gazette and in another
widely-distributed national newspaper; to organize a public act to acknowledge its
international responsibility and apologize to the victims, Dilcia Yean and Violeta
Bosico, and to Leonidas Oliven Yean, Tiramen Bosico Cofi and Teresa Tucent Mena,
with the participation of State authorities, the victims and their next of kin, and the
latter’s representatives, to be broadcast in the media (radio, press and television); to
adopt, as part of its domestic laws, the legislative, administrative and any other
measures necessary to regulate the procedure and requirements for acquiring
Dominican nationality in the case of the late registration of a birth (a procedure
which should be simple, accessible and reasonable), and also, to establish an
effective recourse if the request is denied; to pay compensation for non-pecuniary
damage as well as the costs and expenses generated in the domestic sphere and at
the international level before the inter-American system for the protection of human
rights.
Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his separate opinion, which
accompanies the judgment.
2.
The Serrano Cruz Sisters case (El Salvador): Request for Interpretation
of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. On September 9, 2005, the Court
issued judgment on the request for interpretation of judgment submitted by the
State in this case (Appendix 35). The Court decided to reject as inadmissible, the
request regarding “the reasons that led the Court to establish the amounts the State
must pay for compensation” and the State’s “concern about the scope of the
measures ordered by the Court in compensation for non-pecuniary damage to María
Victoria Cruz Franco, because when the judgment was delivered, she was deceased.”
However, it decided to clarify the meaning and scope of the provisions of paragraph
211 and the twentieth operative paragraph of the judgment on merits, reparations
and costs, which established that the payment of the compensation corresponding to
the mother of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz for non-pecuniary damage “shall
be delivered to her children in equal parts.”
Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello informed the Court of his concurring opinion,
which accompanies the judgment.
3.
Fermín Ramírez case (Guatemala): Provisional Measures. On September
9, 2005, the Court issued an order (Appendix 36) in which it decided to lift the
provisional measures ordered in favor of Fermín Ramírez in its order of March 12,
2005, as the State’s obligations to establish provisional measures had been replaced
by the decisions contained in the judgment on merits, reparations and costs
delivered by the Court on June 20, 2005.
25
4.
Gutiérrez Soler case (Colombia): Merits, Reparations and Costs. On
September 12, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and merits in
this case (Appendix 37) and decided to reaffirm its order of March 10, 2005, which
admitted the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility and declared
that the State of Colombia had violated the right embodied in Article 5(1) (Right to
Humane Treatment) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to
Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Wilson
Gutiérrez Soler, Kevin Daniel Gutiérrez Niño, María Elena Soler de Gutiérrez, Álvaro
Gutiérrez Hernández (deceased), Ricardo Gutiérrez Soler, Yaqueline Reyes, Luisa
Fernanda Gutiérrez Reyes, Paula Camila Gutiérrez Reyes, Leonardo Gutiérrez
Rubiano, Leydi Caterin Gutiérrez Peña, Sulma Tatiana Gutiérrez Rubiano, Ricardo
Alberto Gutiérrez Rubiano and Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez Pubiano. The Court also
declared that the State had violated the rights embodied in Articles 5(2) and 5(4)
(Right to Humane Treatment), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) (Right to
Personal Liberty), 8(1), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e), 8(2)(g) and 8(3) (Right to a Fair Trial) and
25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)
(Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Wilson Gutiérrez Soler. In
addition, the Court declared that the State had failed to comply with the obligations
established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and
Punish Torture, to the detriment of Wilson Gutiérrez Soler.
With regard to reparations, among other matters, the Court ordered the
Colombian State: to comply with the measures ordered in relation to its obligation to
investigate the reported facts, and identify, prosecute and punish those responsible;
to provide free psychological and psychiatric treatment to María Elena Soler de
Gutiérrez, Ricardo Gutiérrez Soler, Yaqueline Reyes, Luisa Fernanda Gutiérrez Reyes,
Paula Camila Gutiérrez Reyes, Leonardo Gutiérrez Rubiano, Leydi Caterin Gutiérrez
Peña, Sulma Tatiana Gutiérrez Rubiano, Ricardo Alberto Gutiérrez Rubiano and
Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez Pubiano; to deliver the amount established in the judgment
to Wilson Gutiérrez Soler to cover the expenses of his medical and psychological
treatment and the psychological treatment for his son, Kevin Daniel Gutiérrez Niño;
to publish specific parts of the judgment in the official gazette and in another widelydistributed national newspaper; to implement training courses for public servants in
the military criminal justice system and law enforcement personnel, which examined
the case law of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights; to
adopt a training program that took into consideration the international norms
established in the Istanbul Protocol; to adopt all necessary measures to strengthen
existing control mechanisms in State detention centers; to pay compensation for
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and also for costs and expenses; and to pay
special attention to safeguarding the lives, integrity and safety of Wilson and Ricardo
Gutiérrez Soler and their next of kin, granting them the necessary protection against
anyone, bearing in mind the circumstances of this case, in accordance with the
provisional measures ordered by this Court on March 11, 2005.
Judges García Ramírez, Jackman and Cançado Trindade informed the Court of
their separate opinions, which accompany the judgment.
5.
Luisiana Ríos et al. case (Radio Caracas
(Venezuela): Provisional Measures. On September 12, 2005,
order on provisional measures in this case (Appendix 38) in
matters, it decided to reiterate to the State that it should
Televisión–RCTV)
the Court issued an
which, among other
adopt all necessary
26
measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of Luisiana Ríos, Armando
Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Carlos Colmenares,
Noé Pernía and Pedro Nikken, and also the freedom of expression of the three lastnamed persons; to safeguard and protect the lives, personal integrity and freedom of
expression of all the journalists, management and other personnel of Radio Caracas
Televisión (RCTV), as well as those who are in its offices or who are linked to RCTV
journalistic activities; and to provide protection around the perimeter of the offices of
Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV). The Court also called upon the State to present a
report on the provisional measures it had ordered by October 28, 2005, at the latest,
since it had failed to submit five bimonthly reports to the Court.
6.
The “Mapiripán Massacre” case (Colombia): Merits, Reparations and
Costs. On September 15, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations
and merits in this case (Appendix 39) and decided that the State of Colombia had
violated the rights embodied in Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to
Humane Treatment), and 7(1) and 7(2) (Right to Personal Liberty), in relation to
Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention on Human
Rights, to the detriment of a certain number of victims – which, according to the
State amounted to “approximately 49” - of whom, the following have been
individualized: José Rolan Valencia, Sinaí Blanco Santamaría, Antonio María Barrera
Calle, Álvaro Tovar Muñoz, Jaime Pinzón, Raúl Morales, Edwin Morales, Manuel
Arévalo, Hugo Fernando Martínez Contreras, Diego Armando Martínez Contreras,
Omar Patiño Vaca, Eliécer Martínez Vaca, Gustavo Caicedo Rodríguez, Enrique Pinzón
López, Luis Eduardo Pinzón López, Jorge Pinzón López, José Alberto Pinzón López,
Jaime Riaño Colorado and Uriel Garzón and Ana Beiba Ramírez. The Court also
declared that the State had violated Article 22(1) (Freedom of Movement and
Residence) in relation to Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) (Right to Humane
Treatment), 19 (Rights of the Child) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the
American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Mariela Contreras Cruz,
Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez Contreras, Maryuri and Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Zuli
Herrera Contreras, Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo, Carmen Johanna Jaramillo Giraldo,
Marina Sanmiguel Duarte, Nadia Mariana, Yinda Adriana, Johanna Marina, Roland
Andrés and Ronald Mayiber, Valencia Sanmiguel, Teresa López de Pinzón and Luz
Mery Pinzón López; and Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Judicial Protection),
and 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment), in relation to Article 1(1)
(Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin
of the victims. The Court also declared that the State had violated Article 19 (Rights
of the Child), in relation to Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) (Right to Humane
Treatment) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention, to
the detriment of Hugo Fernando and Diego Armando Martínez Contreras, Carmen
Johanna Jaramillo Giraldo, Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Maryuri Caicedo Contreras,
Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez Contreras and the Valencia Sanmiguel siblings: Nadia
Mariana, Yinda Adriana, Johanna Marina, Roland Andrés and Ronald Mayiber, and the
same article, in relation to Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 22(1) (Freedom of Movement
and Residence) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the
detriment of those who were children when they were displaced from Mapiripán, and
who were individualized in the judgment: Carmen Johanna Jaramillo Giraldo,
Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Maryuri Caicedo Contreras, Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez
Contreras and the Valencia Sanmiguel siblings: Nadia Mariana, Yinda Adriana,
Johanna Marina, Roland Andrés and Ronald Mayiber.
27
With regard to reparations, the Court ordered the Colombian State: to
conduct the necessary procedures to activate and complete, within a reasonable
time, the investigation to determine the masterminds and perpetrators of the
massacre, and also the persons whose collaboration and acquiescence made it
possible; to carry out immediately the necessary procedures to individualize and
identify, within a reasonable time, the victims who were executed and disappeared,
and their next of kin; to establish an official mechanism that will operate for two
years, and in which the victims in this case or their representatives participate, to
carry out the functions indicated in the judgment; to provide all the next of kin of the
victims who were executed or disappeared with appropriate medical care, including
medication; to carry out the necessary actions to guarantee safe conditions for the
next of kin of the victims, as well as the other former inhabitants of Mapiripán who
were displaced to return to Mapiripán, if they so wish; to build an appropriate,
dignified monument to recall the Mapiripán massacre; to organize permanent human
rights and international humanitarian law education programs for the Colombian
armed forces of all ranks; to publish specific parts of the judgment in the official
gazette and in another widely-distributed national newspaper, and to pay
compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and for costs and expenses.
Judge Cançado Trindade and Judge ad hoc Zafra Roldán informed the Court of
their separate opinions, which accompany the judgment.
7.
Raxcacó Reyes case (Guatemala): Merits, Reparations and Costs. On
September 15, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and merits in
this case (Appendix 40) and decided that the State of Guatemala had violated the
rights embodied in Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(6) (Right to Life) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect
Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof; and Articles 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to
Humane Treatment) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)
(Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Raxcacó Reyes. It also
declared that it had not been proved that the State had violated the right embodied
in Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human
Rights to the detriment of Raxcacó Reyes.
With regard to reparations, among other matters, the Court ordered the
Guatemalan Government: to modify article 201 of the Penal Code in force, so as to
classify various specific types of crimes in order to establish the different forms of
kidnapping and abduction, based on the characteristics, the gravity of the facts and
the circumstances of the crime, and to provide different punishments proportionate
to the crime, and also to grant judges the power to individualize punishments in
keeping with the facts and the author, within the maximum and minimum range of
penalties in each criminal judgment, and that this modification should not expand the
list of crimes carrying the death penalty established prior to ratification of the
American Convention; to abstain from applying the death penalty and executing
those convicted of the crime of kidnapping or abduction, until these modifications
have been made; to adopt a procedure guaranteeing that all those condemned to
death have the right to apply for and, if appropriate, to obtain a pardon, in
accordance with rules that establish the authority empowered to grant this and the
respective grounds and procedures (in these cases sentences must not be executed
while the decision on the requested pardon or commutation is pending); to annul the
punishment imposed on Raxcacó Reyes in the judgment of the Sixth Court for
28
Sentencing Crimes, Drug-Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment within a
reasonable time and to decide another punishment, without the need for new
proceedings, which must not be the death penalty; also, to ensure that the new
punishment is proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the crime prosecuted,
and takes into account any aggravating or attenuating circumstances that may relate
to the case, so that, before delivering judgment, the parties must be granted the
opportunity to exercise their right to a hearing; to adopt the necessary measures so
that prison conditions are adapted to the respective international standards; to
provide Raxcacó Reyes with adequate medical and psychological treatment, including
medication; to adopt the necessary measures so that Raxcacó Reyes receives
periodic visits from Olga Isabel Vicente; to adopt the educational, employment or
other measures necessary for the rehabilitation of Raxcacó Reyes once he has served
his sentence; to publish specific parts of the judgment in the official gazette and in
another widely-distributed national newspaper, and to reimburse expenses.
Judge Sergio García Ramírez informed the Court of his concurring opinion,
which accompanies the judgment.
8.
The “Pueblo Bello Massacre” case (Colombia): Preliminary Objections
and Possible Merits, Reparations and Costs. On September 19 and 20, 2005, the
Court held a public hearing and heard the statements of the witnesses proposed by
the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the next of kin of the
alleged victims, and the State of Colombia, as well as the arguments of the parties
on the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs in this
case.
9.
Acevedo Jaramillo et al. case (SITRAMUN) (Peru): Preliminary
Objections and Possible Merits, Reparations and Costs. On September 20 and 21,
2005, the Court held a public hearing, during which it heard the statements of
three witnesses proposed by the person acting jointly for the representatives of the
alleged victims and the State of Peru, and also the arguments of the parties on the
preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs in this case.
10.
López Alvarez et al. case (Honduras): Provisional Measures. On
September 21, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case
(Appendix 41) in which, among other matters, it decided to reiterate the measures
determined in the order adopted by the Court on June 13, 2005, that the State
should implement the necessary measure to protect the lives and personal integrity
of Alfredo López Álvarez, Teresa Reyes Reyes and Gregoria Flores Martínez. It also
decided to call upon the State: to expand the necessary measures to protect the
lives and personal integrity of the mother and the daughters of Gregoria Flores
Martínez; and to ensure and implement effectively the necessary conditions for
Gregoria Flores Martínez, who had been forced to move, to return safely to her
home, and to investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption and maintenance of
the provisional measures, to identify those responsible and impose the corresponding
sanctions.
11.
The Urso Branco Prison case (Brazil): Provisional Measures. On
September 21, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case
(Appendix 42) in which, among other matters, it decided call upon the State: to
adopt forthwith all necessary measures to protect effectively the lives and personal
29
integrity of all those imprisoned in the Urso Branco Prison, as well as any person who
enters the prison, including visitors and security agents who work there; to adapt the
conditions of this prison to the respective international norms for the protection of
human rights; and to forward to the Court an updated list of all those detained in the
prison detailing the names of those who have been liberated, those who have
entered the prison, the number and name of the prisoners who are serving
sentences and of those who are detained without a conviction, and whether the
convicted prisoners and those who have not been convicted are located in different
sections. The Court also requested the State to submit its eleventh report on
compliance with the measures by November 6, 2005, at the latest, bearing in mind
that the deadline for the presentation of this report had expired, and that this report
should refer to the serious situations and facts described by the applicants in their
brief of July 8, 2005.
12.
Ramírez Hinostroza et al. case (Peru): Provisional Measures. On
September 21, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case
(Appendix 43) in which, among other matters, it decided to ratify all the terms of
the order of the President of the Court of July 22, 2005, and, therefore, to call upon
the State to maintain any measures it had adopted and to adopt, forthwith, any
measures necessary to protect the lives and personal integrity of Luis Alberto
Ramírez Hinostroza, his wife Susana Silvia Rivera Prado, and his three daughters:
Yolanda Susana Ramírez Rivera, Karen Rose Ramírez Rivera and Lucero Consuelo
Ramírez Rivera, and of his lawyer, Carlos Rivera Paz, and to this end the State
should take into consideration the gravity of the situation and the specific danger.
13.
Eloisa Barrios et al. case (Venezuela): Provisional Measures. On
September 22, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case
(Appendix 44) in which, among other matters, it decided to reiterate the measures
ordered in the orders of the Court of November 23, 2004, and June 29, 2005, in
favor of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures; and to reiterate to the State
that it should maintain the measures it had adopted and order, immediately, any
others necessary to provide effective protection to the lives and personal integrity of
Eloisa Barrios, Inés Barrios, Beatriz Barrios, Carolina García, Pablo Solórzano, Caudy
Barrios, Oscar Barrios, Jorge Barrios and Juan Barrios, and to expand, forthwith, the
measures necessary to protect the lives and personal integrity of the following
persons: Roni Barrios, Roniex Barrios and Luis Alberto Barrios; Yelitza Lugo Pelaes,
Arianna Nazaret Barrios and Oriana Zabaret Barrios; Víctor Cabrera Barrios, Beatriz
Cabrera Barrios, Luimari Guzmán Barrios and Luiseydi Guzmán Barrios; Wilmer José
Barrios, Génesis Andreina Barrios, Víctor Tomas Barrios and Geilin Alexandra Barrios;
Elvira Barrios, Darelvis Barrios, Elvis Sarais Barrios, Cirilo Robert Barrios and Lorena
Barrios. It also decided to call upon the State to provide the necessary permanent
surveillance measures to safeguard the home of Orismar Carolina Alzul García and to
ensure and implement effectively the necessary conditions for the members of the
Barrios family, who have been forced to move to other parts of the country, to return
to their homes.
Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his concurring opinion, which
accompanies the order.
14.
Ituango case (Colombia): Preliminary Objection and Possible Merits,
Reparations and Costs. On September 22 and 23, 2005, the Court held a public
30
hearing, during which it heard the statements of the witnesses and the reports of
the expert witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, the representatives of the alleged victims, and the Colombian State, as well
as the arguments of the parties on the preliminary objection and possible merits,
reparations and costs in this case.
15.
Compliance with Judgments: During this session the Court issued orders
on compliance with judgment in the following cases: Juan Humberto Sánchez
(Honduras) (Appendix 45), Trujillo Oroza (Bolivia) (Appendix 46), Myrna
Mack Chang (Guatemala) (Appendix 47), Herrera Ulloa (Costa Rica)
(Appendix 48), Barrios Altos (Peru) (Appendix 49), Maritza Urrutia
(Guatemala) (Appendix 50), Ivcher Bronstein (Peru) (Appendix 51) and the
“Five Pensioners” (Peru) (Appendix 52).
E.
Sixty-ninth Regular Session of the Court
The American Court of Human Rights held its sixty-ninth Regular Session in
San José, Costa Rica from November 17 to December 2, 2005, 5 with the following
members: Sergio García Ramírez (Mexico), President; Alirio Abreu Burelli
(Venezuela), Vice President; Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Antônio A. Cançado
Trindade (Brazil); Cecilia Medina Quiroga (Chile); Manuel E. Ventura Robles (Costa
Rica) and Diego García Sayán (Peru). The following Judge ad hoc also took part in
the session: Jorge Santistevan de Noriega, appointed by the State of Peru for the
García Asto and Ramírez Rojas case. Also present were the Secretary of the Court,
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri (Chile) and the Deputy Secretary, Emilia Segares
Rodríguez (Costa Rica). During this session, the Court considered the following
matters:
1.
Palamara Iribarne case (Chile): Merits, Reparations and Costs. On
November 22, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and merits in
this case (Appendix 53) and declared that the State of Chile had violated the rights
embodied in Articles 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4)
and 7(5) (Personal Liberty), 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(f), 8(2)(g), 5
(Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on
Human Rights, to the detriment of Humberto Antonio Palamara Iribarne, in relation
to the general obligations to respect and ensure the rights and freedoms and to
adopt domestic legislative measures established in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to
Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof. The Court also declared that
the State had violated the right embodied in Article 21(1) and 21(2) (Right to
Property) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Humberto Antonio
Palamara Iribarne, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof.
Furthermore, the Court declared that Chile had failed to comply with the general
obligations to respect and ensure the rights and freedoms and to adopt domestic
legislative measures established in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2
(Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention, as established in the judgment.
With regard to reparations, the Court ordered the State: to allow Humberto
Antonio Palamara Iribarne to publish his book and to return all the material of which
5
The European Union was the main source of financing for the sixty-ninth Regular Session.
31
he was deprived; to publish specific parts of the judgment in the official gazette and
in another widely-distributed national newspaper, and also to publish the entire
judgment on the State’s official website; to annul Mr. Palamara Iribarne’s
convictions; to adopt the necessary measures to abrogate and modify any domestic
norms that are incompatible with international standards on freedom of thought and
expression; to adapt domestic laws to international standards on the military
criminal justice system, so that if the existence of a military criminal jurisdiction is
considered necessary, it is limited to hearing offenses committed during the course
of duty by soldiers in active service, thus establishing legal limits to the material and
personal jurisdiction of military courts so that a civilian may never be submitted to
the jurisdiction of a military criminal court; to ensure due process of law in the
military criminal jurisdiction and judicial protection as regards the actions of the
military authorities. The Court also established the compensation that the State must
pay Mr. Palamara Iribarne for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and the amount
it should reimburse for costs and expenses.
Judge García Ramírez and Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of
their separate opinions, which accompany the judgment.
2.
Gómez Palomino case (Peru): Merits, Reparations and Costs. On
November 22, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and merits in
this case (Appendix 54) and decided to admit the State of Peru’s acknowledgement
of international responsibility. The Court also declared that the State had violated the
rights embodied in Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane
Treatment), and 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty) of
the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to
Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Santiago Gómez Palomino; 8(1) (Right
to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to
Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Santiago
Gómez Palomino and his next of kin: Victoria Margarita Palomino Buitrón, Esmila
Liliana Conislla Cárdenas, María Dolores Gómez Palomino, Luzmila Sotelo Palomino,
Emiliano Palomino Buitrón, Mercedes Palomino Buitrón, Mónica Palomino Buitrón,
Rosa Palomino Buitrón and Margarita Palomino Buitrón, and the child, Ana María
Gómez Guevara; and Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in
relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of
Victoria Margarita Palomino Buitrón, Esmila Liliana Conislla Cárdenas, María Dolores
Gómez Palomino, Luzmila Sotelo Palomino, Emiliano Palomino Buitrón, Mercedes
Palomino Buitrón, Mónica Palomino Buitrón, Rosa Palomino Buitrón and Margarita
Palomino Buitrón, and the child, Ana María Gómez Guevara. The Court also declared
that the State had failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 2
(Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to duly
ensure the rights to life, personal liberty and personal integrity of Santiago Gómez
Palomino and Article 1(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance
of Persons.
With regard to reparations, among other matters, the Court ordered the State
of Peru: to investigate the reported facts and also to identify, prosecute and punish
those responsible; to carry out the necessary actions to locate the remains of
Santiago Gómez Palomino and deliver them to his next of kin, and to facilitate the
required conditions for the transfer and interment of these remains in the place of
their choosing; to publish specific parts of the judgment in the official gazette and in
32
another widely-distributed national newspaper; to provide medical and psychological
care to the next of kin of Mr. Gómez Palomino, without any cost, through its
specialized health institutions; to implement the educational programs established in
the judgment; to adopt the necessary measures to reform its penal laws in order to
make them compatible with international standards on the forced disappearance of
persons; to pay compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and to
reimburse costs and expenses.
Judges García Ramírez, Cançado Trindade and Medina Quiroga informed the
Court of their concurring opinions, which accompany the judgment.
3.
Pilar Noriega García et al. case (Mexico): Provisional Measures. On
November 24, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures in this case
(Appendix 55) in which, among other matters, it decided that the State of Mexico
should: maintain the necessary measure to protect the lives and personal integrity
of Pilar Noriega García, Bárbara Zamora López, Leonel Rivero Rodríguez, María de
los Ángeles Espinosa Sánchez, Augusto César Sandino Rivero Espinosa, Luisa
Amanda Rivero Espinosa, María Katherina Rivero Espinosa, Eusebio Ochoa López
and Irene Alicia Plácido Evangelista, and of Carmen, Jesús, Luz María, Eusebio,
Guadalupe, Ismael, Elia, Estela, Roberto, Juan Carlos, Ignacio and Agustín, all
Ochoa y Plácido; continue investigating the facts that gave rise to the said
provisional measures in order to identify those responsible and impose the
corresponding sanctions; and allow the beneficiaries or their representative to take
part in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in
general, keep them informed about the evolution of the measures. In particular,
the Court urged the beneficiaries or their representative and the State to
collaborate, as they have on repeated occasions, to determine the required
protection jointly.
4.
García Asto and Ramírez Rojas case (Peru): Preliminary Objection,
Merits, Reparations and Costs. On November 25, 2005, the Court delivered judgment
on the preliminary objection, merit, reparations and costs in this case (Appendix
56) and decided to admit the State of Peru’s acknowledgement of the facts prior to
September 2000. The Court also declared that the State had violated the rights
embodied in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3),
7(5) and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty), 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(f) and 8(5) (Right to a
Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws and Retroactivity) and 25 (Judicial
Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Wilson
García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas; and 8(2)(c) (Right to a Fair Trial) of the
Convention, to the detriment of Wilson García Asto, all in relation to Article 1(1)
(Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof. The Court also declared that the State had
violated the right embodied in Article 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment) of the
Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the
detriment of Napoleón García Tuesta, Celia Asto Urbano, Elisa García Asto, Gustavo
García, María Alejandra Rojas, Marcos Ramírez Álvarez and Santa, Pedro, Filomena,
Julio, Obdulia, Marcelino and Adela, all Ramírez Rojas.
With regard to reparations, among other matters, the Court decided that the
Peruvian State must: provide free medical and psychological care to Wilson García
Asto; grant Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas the possibility of
obtaining professional and ongoing training, by providing them with grants; pay
33
compensation to Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas for pecuniary
damage, costs and expenses, and also to Wilson García Asto, Urcesino Ramírez
Rojas, Napoleón García Tuesta, Celia Asto Urbano, Elisa García Asto, Gustavo García,
María Alejandra Rojas, Marcos Ramírez Álvarez and Santa, Pedro, Filomena, Julio,
Obdulia, Marcelino and Adela, all Ramírez Rojas, for non-pecuniary damage; and
publish specific parts of the judgment in the official gazette and in another widelydistributed national newspaper.
Judge Medina Quiroga and Judge ad hoc Santistevan de Noriega informed the
Court of their dissenting and partially dissenting opinions, respectively, which
accompany the judgment.
5.
Castañeda Gutman case (Mexico): Provisional Measures. On November
25, 2005, the Court issued an order on the request for provisional measures
presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in this case
(Appendix 57) in which it decided to reject this request in favor of Jorge
Castañeda Gutman as inadmissible.
Judges Antônio A. Cançado Trindade and Manuel E. Ventura Robles informed
the Court of their joint separate opinion, which accompanies the order.
6.
Blanco Romero et al. case (Venezuela): Merits, Reparations and Costs.
On November 28, 2005, the Court issued judgment on merits, reparations and costs
in this case (Appendix 58) and decided to confirm its order of June 28, 2005, in
which it admitted the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the
State of Venezuela. The Court also declared that the State had violated the rights
embodied in Articles 4(1) (Right to Life); 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane
Treatment), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty), 8(1)
(Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on
Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2
(Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, and had also failed to comply with the obligations
established in Articles 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent
and Punish Torture, and Articles 1(a) and 1(b), 10 and 11 of the Inter-American
Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Oscar José
Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz and José Francisco Rivas Fernández.
The Court also declared that the State had violated the rights embodied in Articles
5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial
Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1)
(Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof and had failed to comply with the obligation
established in Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish
Torture, to the detriment of the next of kin of Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto
Javier Hernández Paz and José Francisco Rivas Fernández, as follows: Alejandra
Josefina Iriarte de Blanco, Gisela Romero, Aleoscar Russeth Blanco Iriarte, Oscar
Alejandro José Blanco Iriarte, Orailis del Valle Blanco, Edwar José Blanco, Teodora
Paz de Hernández, Roberto Aniceto Hernández, Nélida Marina Hernández Paz, Aida
Benirgia Hernández Paz, Mirna Esperanza Hernández Paz, Aleidy Maritza Hernández
Paz, Brizania Hernández Paz, Reina Alejandra Antune Paz, Ramón Alberto Paz, Carlos
Paz, Nélida Josefina Fernández Pelicie, Francisco Jeremías Rivas, Eneida Josefina
Rivas Fernández, Yelitza Isabel Rivas Fernández, Luis Ernesto Rivas Fernández,
Rubén Alexis Rivas Fernández, Miguel Enrique Galindo Fernández and José Daniel
Rivas Martínez. Lastly, the Court declared that the State had violated Article 8(2)
(Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to
34
Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Alejandra
Josefina Iriarte de Blanco.
With regard to reparations, among other matters, the Court decided that the
Venezuelan State must: conduct investigations and effective and impartial judicial
proceedings in relation to the three forced disappearances that occurred in this case,
which lead to clarification of the facts and punishment of those responsible; adopt
the necessary measure to find Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández
Paz and José Francisco Rivas Fernández as soon as possible and, if they are dead
when they are traced, deliver their remains to their next of kin, so that they can be
buried appropriately, in which case the State must facilitate the transferral of the
remains to the place chosen by the next of kin and provide them with a decent burial
without any cost to the next of kin; publish specific parts of the judgment in the
official gazette and in another widely-distributed national newspaper; adopt any
legislative or other measures necessary to ensure that, in Venezuela, a petition for
habeas corpus can be processed effectively in situations of forced disappearance;
adopt the necessary measures to reform the penal laws to make them compatible
with international standards on the protection of the individual in relation to the
forced disappearance of persons; implement a program for members of the Armed
Forces and the Sectoral Directorate General of the Intelligence and Prevention
Services of training courses on human rights principles and protection norms, in
particular the prohibition of forced disappearance, torture and the disproportionate
use of force, taking into account the case law of the inter-American system for the
protection of human rights, in order to prevent the recurrence of facts such as those
of this case; adopt the necessary measures to facilitate the departure from
Venezuela of the child, Aleoscar Russeth Blanco Iriarte; and pay the next of kin of
Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz and José Francisco Rivas
Fernández compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and
expenses, to be delivered to Alejandra Josefina Iriarte de Blanco, Teodora Paz de
Hernández and Nélida Josefina Fernández Pelicie.
Judge García Ramírez and Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of
their concurring and separate opinions, respectively, which accompany the
judgment.
7.
Advisory Opinion OC-19: On November 28, 2005, the Court issued Advisory
Opinion OC-19/05 Control of Legality in the Exercise of the Functions of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 to 51 of the American
Convention on Human Rights) (Appendix 59), which had been requested by the
State of Venezuela. In this Advisory Opinion, the Court emitted the opinion that the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as an organ of the inter-American
human rights system, had full autonomy and independence in the exercise of its
mandate in accordance with the American Convention on Human Rights, and that it
acted with the legal framework of the Convention in exercising its functions in
relation to the procedure of processing individual petitions established in Articles 44
to 51 thereof, and also in the exercise of its other functions for the promotion and
protection of human rights embodied in Article 41. The Court also considered that, in
the exercise of its own functions, it controls the legality of the Commission’s actions
concerning the processing of matters submitted to it, in accordance with the
American Convention and other inter-American instruments for the protection of
human rights.
35
8.
The case of the Children and Adolescents Deprived of Liberty in the
“Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM (Brazil): Provisional Measures. On November
17, 2005, the Court issued an order in this case (Appendix 60), calling upon the
State to adopt, forthwith, all necessary measures to protect the lives and personal
integrity of all the children and adolescents interned in the FEBEM “Complexo do
Tatuapé,” and also of any person inside this complex. It also decided to convene the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the representatives of the
beneficiaries of these provisional measures and the State of Brazil, to a public
hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on November 29, 2005.
The Court held a public hearing on that date, during which it heard the
arguments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the representatives
of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, and the State of Brazil on the
provisional measures requested in this case.
On November 30, 2005, the Court issued another order on provisional
measures in this case (Appendix 61) in which, among other matters, it decided
that the State of Brazil should: adopt all necessary measures to protect the lives
and personal integrity of all the children and adolescents interned in the FEBEM
“Complexo do Tatuapé,” and also all those inside the complex; and, specifically,
that it should prevent outbursts of violence, guarantee the safety of the interns,
maintain the order and discipline of the complex, and prevent the young interns
from being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court also
decided that the State must adopt the necessary measures to reduce overcrowding
in the “Complexo do Tatuapé,” confiscate any arms in the possession of the youths,
separate the interns in keeping with the relevant international standards and
bearing in mind the best interests of the child; provide the necessary medical care
to the interns, and periodically monitor the detention conditions and the physical
and emotional conditions of the children detainees.
Judges García Ramírez and Cançado Trindade informed the Court of their
concurring opinions, which accompany the order.
9.
Ximenes Lopes case (Brazil): Preliminary Objection and Possible Merits,
Reparations and Costs. On November 30 and December 1, 2005, the Court held a
public hearing during which it heard the statements of the witnesses and the expert
witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the
representatives of the alleged victim and the next of kin, and the State of Brazil, and
also the arguments of the parties on the preliminary objection and the possible
merits, reparations and costs in this case. During the first part of the public hearing,
the parties referred only to the preliminary objection on non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies filed by the State.
On November 30, 2005, the Court delivered judgment on the preliminary
objection filed in this case (Appendix 62) and decided to reject the preliminary
objection on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies filed by the State of Brazil and to
continue with the public hearing and the other procedural mechanisms relating to
merits, and possible reparations and costs in this case.
36
Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his concurring opinion, which
accompanies the judgment.
10.
Compliance with Judgments: During this session, the Court issued orders
on compliance with judgment in the following cases: Baena Ricardo et al.
(Appendix 63) (Panama), Cantos (Appendix 64) (Argentina) and the Gómez
Paquiyauri Brothers (Appendix 65) (Peru).
F.
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENTS AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES
In order to monitor compliance with the undertaking made by the States “to
comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties” (Article
68 of the Convention) and, in particular, to inform the General Assembly of “the
cases in which a State has not complied with its judgments” (Article 65 of the
Convention), the Court needs to know the extent to which States have complied with
its rulings. Accordingly, the Court must monitor that the States concerned comply
with the reparations it has ordered, before informing the OAS General Assembly
about any failure to comply with its decisions.
The Court’s monitoring of compliance with its decisions implies, first, that it
must request information from the State on the activities carried out to implement
compliance, and then obtain the comments of the Commission and of the victims or
their representatives. When the Court has received this information, it can assess
whether the State has complied with its judgment, guide the State’s activities to that
effect, and comply with its obligation to inform the General Assembly, in the terms
of Article 65 of the Convention.
In light of the above, and exercising the powers inherent in its jurisdictional
function of monitoring compliance with its judgments, the Court will now report on
compliance in several contentious cases and with regard to provisional measures:
A.
Contentious cases
The Court issued a series of orders that reflect the degree of compliance with
judgment: Loayza Tamayo v. Peru (Appendix 12), Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala
(Appendix 13), the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala
(Appendix 32), Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala (Appendix 50), Ivcher Bronstein v.
Peru (Appendix 51), Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras (Appendix 45), Trujillo
Oroza v. Bolivia (Appendix 46), Mack Chang v. Guatemala (Appendix 47),
Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (Appendix 48), the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru
(Appendix 52), Barrios Altos v. Peru (Appendix 49), Baena Ricardo et al. v.
Panama (Appendix 63), the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru (Appendix 65)
and Cantos v. Argentina (Appendix 64).
B.
Provisional measures
The Court issued a series of orders in the following cases that reflect the
degree of compliance with and implementation of the provisional measures it had
ordered: Bámaca Velásquez with respect to Guatemala (Appendix 8), the
37
Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó with respect to Colombia
(Appendix 10), the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó with respect to
Colombia (Appendix 11), Eloisa Barrios et al. with respect to Venezuela (Appendix
31), James et al. with respect to Trinidad and Tobago (Appendix 1), Liliana Ortega
et al. with respect to Venezuela (Appendix 18), Luisiana Ríos et al. with respect to
Venezuela (Appendix 38), the Mendoza Prisons with respect to Argentina
(Appendix 23), and the Sarayaku Indigenous People with respect to Ecuador
(Appendix 22).
The Court also decided that the provisional measures ordered in the following
cases should be lifted: Blake (Appendix 17), Fermín Ramírez (Appendix 36), and
the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, all with respect to Guatemala (Appendix 16).
The Court observes with concern that, in seven cases, the State has only
complied partially with the provisional measures of protection it ordered, because
individuals have died for whom the Court ordered measures to ensure the protection
of their lives and personal integrity. The provisional measures referred to are: the
Peace Community of San José de Apartadó with respect to Colombia, the Urso
Branco Prison with respect to Brazil, the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the
Curbaradó with respect to Colombia, the Kankuamo Indigenous People with respect
to Colombia, Eloísa Barrios et al. with respect to Venezuela, the Mendoza Prisons
with respect to Argentina, and the Children and Adolescents Deprived of Liberty in
the FEBEM “Complexó do Tatuapé” with respect to Brazil.
G.
SUBMISSION OF NEW CONTENTIOUS CASES
During 2005, the following cases were submitted to the Court’s consideration:
1.
Nogueira de Carvalho v. Brazil
On January 13, 2005, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed
an application against the State of Brazil, concerning the Nogueira de Carvalho case
(No. 12,058). The application relates to the alleged responsibility of the State “in the
[alleged] acts and omissions in the investigation into the murder of the lawyer,
Francisco Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, human rights defender, and also to the
[alleged] lack of adequate reparation in favor of Jaurídice Nogueira de Carvalho and
Geraldo Cruz de Carvalho, Mr. Nogueira de Carvalho’s mother and father.”
In the application, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8 (Right to a
Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights)
thereof, to the detriment of Jaurídice Nogueira de Carvalho and Geraldo Cruz de
Carvalho.
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measures of reparation indicated in the application, in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention.
38
2.
Servellón García et al. v. Honduras
On February 2, 2005, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed
an application against the State of Honduras concerning the Servellón García et al.
case (No. 12,331). The application related to the alleged illegal detention, torture
and subsequent extrajudicial execution of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony
Alexis Betancourt Vásquez, Diomedes Obed García and Orlando Álvarez Ríos
allegedly carried out by State agents in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, from September 15
to 17, 1995.
In the application, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 7 (Right to
Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Right to a
Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights)
thereof, to the detriment of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth
Vásquez, Diomedes Obed García and Orlando Álvarez Ríos; Article 19 (Rights of the
Child) of the American Convention, in relation to the rights embodied in Articles 5(5)
(Right to Humane Treatment) and 7(5) (Right to Personal Liberty) thereof, in relation
to the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the
Convention, to the detriment of the children, Marco Antonio Servellón García and
Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez; and Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Judicial
Protection) and 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention, in
relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights)
thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victims.
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measures of reparation indicated in the application in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention.
3.
The Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay
On February 3, 2005, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed
an application against the State of Paraguay with regard to the Sawhoyamaxa
Indigenous Community of the Enxet People and its members (No. 12,419). The
application concerned the alleged responsibility of the State “for [allegedly] failing to
ensure the ancestral rights of the Indigenous Community, because, since 1991, the
Community’s territorial claim was being processed and had not yet been resolved
satisfactorily. [The Commission alleges] that, in consequence, not only has the
Community been unable to accede to the ownership and possession of its land, but
also, owing to its characteristics, it is highly vulnerable as regards food, health and
sanitation, and this constitutes a continuing threat to the survival of the members of
the Community and to its integrity.”
In the application, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 4 (Right to
Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 21 (Right to Property), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial)
and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation
39
to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects)
thereof.
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measures of reparation indicated in the application, in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention.
4.
The “Dismissed Congressional Employees” v. Peru
On February 4, 2005, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention, the Inter-American Commission filed an application against the State of
Peru in the case of the “Dismissed Congressional Employees” (No. 11,830). The
application concerned the alleged responsibility of the State “for the [alleged]
dismissal of a group of 257 employees from the National Congress of the Republic of
Peru […,] who [allegedly] formed part of a group of 1,117 employees who were
[allegedly] dismissed by congressional resolutions of December 31, 1992.” The facts
of this application occurred in the general context of the rupture of the institutional
system in Peru, as of 1992, which was of a notorious and public nature.
In the application, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) (Right
to a Fair Trial) and 25(1) (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human
Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic
Legal Effects) thereof, to the detriment of these employees.
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measures of reparation indicated in the application, in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention.
5.
Baldeón García v. Peru
On February 11, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in
accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
filed an application against the State of Peru in the Bernabé Baldeón García case (No.
11,767). The application concerned the alleged illegal detention, cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment, and extrajudicial execution of an indigenous agricultural
worker, of 68 years of age, Bernabé Baldeón García, allegedly carried out by
members of the Peruvian Armed Forces on September 25 or 26, 1990, in the
Department of Ayacucho, Peru.
In the application, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 4 (Right to
Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the
American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights)
thereof, to the detriment of Bernabé Baldeón García. The Commission also requested
the Court to declare that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights
embodied in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25
(Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)
(Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the victim’s next of kin:
Guadalupe Yllaconza Ramírez de Baldeón (wife) and Crispín, Fidela, Roberto,
40
Segundina,
(children).
Miguelita,
Perseveranda,
Vicente
and
Sabina
Baldeón
Yllaconza
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measure of reparation indicated in the application, in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention.
6.
Montero Aranguren et al. v. Venezuela
On February 24, 2005, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed
an application against the State of Venezuela, with regard to the Montero Aranguren
case (No. 11,699). The application concerned “the [alleged] failure to prevent acts of
violence and intervene in emergency situations at the Police Station [and Judicial
Detention Center of Las Flores de Catia, in Caracas, during the events that took place
from November 27 to 29, 1992]; the [alleged] excessive use of force; the [alleged]
extrajudicial execution of several detainees; the [alleged] inhuman detention
conditions that led to the violence and lack of security at the Police Station at the
time of the facts; the [alleged] lack of a prompt and complete investigation; the
[alleged] denial of justice to the detriment of the [alleged] victims and their next of
kin; and the [alleged] absence of penitentiary policies adapted to international
standards.”
In the application, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 4 (Right to
Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial
Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1)
(Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof.
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measure of reparation indicated in the application, in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention.
7.
Vargas Areco v. Paraguay
On March 27, 2005, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed
an application against Paraguay in the Vargas Areco case (No. 12,300) and on April
22, 2005, it presented an amendment to it. The application concerned the alleged
responsibility of the State “for failing to investigate, prosecute and punish those
responsible for the violations committed against [the minor, Gerardo Vargas Areco,]
effectively and promptly,” owing to his alleged “murder […] on December 30, 1989,
when he was performing his obligatory military service with the Paraguayan Army”.
In the application, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8 (Right to a
Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to
Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the alleged
victim’s next of kin: Pedro Vargas, father; De Belén Areco, mother, and Juan, María
Elisa, Patricio, Daniel, Doralicia, Mario, María Magdalena, Sebastián and Jorge
Ramón, all Vargas Areco, the alleged victim’s siblings.
41
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measure of reparation indicated in the application, in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention.
8.
Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay
On June 8, 2005, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention, the Inter-American Commission filed an application against the State of
Paraguay, with regard to the Goiburú et al. case (Nos. 11,560, 11,665 and 11,667).
The application concerned the alleged illegal detention, torture and forced
disappearance of Agustín Goiburú, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro and the brothers,
Rodolfo Feliciano and Benjamín de Jesús Ramírez Villalba, allegedly committed by
Paraguay’s agents as of 1974 and 1977, and the partial impunity of these facts,
since not all those responsible have been sanctioned. The Commission alleged that
the “forced disappearance of [the said] persons is a continued violation [...] that still
persists, because the State has not traced the whereabouts of the [alleged] victims,
and has not found their remains. In addition, it has not criminally sanctioned those
responsible for the violations committed against them, or provided adequate
reparation for their next of kin.”
In the application the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 7 (Right to
Personal Liberty) and 4 (Right to Life) of the American Convention, in relation to the
obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the
detriment of these individuals. It also requested the Court to declare that the rights
embodied in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Judicial Protection) and 5 (Right to
Humane Treatment) of the American Convention, had been violated, in relation to
the obligation established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the alleged
victims and their next of kin.
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measure of reparation indicated in the application, in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention.
9.
Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile
On July 8, 2005, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed
an application against the State of Chile, with regard to the Claude Reyes et al. case
(No. 12,108). The application concerned events that occurred between May and July
1998 and refer to the State’s alleged refusal to provide Marcel Claude Reyes,
Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero with all the information they
had requested from the Foreign Investments Committee with regard to the forestry
corporation, Trillium, and the River Condor Project, without “providing a valid
justification in accordance with Chilean laws,” and also that the State allegedly “did
not grant [them] an effective judicial recourse to contest a violation of the right of
access to information” and “did not guarantee [them ...] the rights of access to
information and to judicial protection, and had no mechanisms that guaranteed the
right of access to public information.”
42
In the application the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 13
(Freedom of Thought and Expression), 25 (Judicial Protection), 1(1) (Obligation to
Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention on
Human Rights, to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and
Arturo Longton Guerrero.
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measure of reparation indicated in the application in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention and, “when the
representatives of the [alleged] victims had been heard, to reimburse the duly
substantiated costs and expenses.”
10.
Luis Almonacid Arellano v. Chile
On July 11, 2005, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed
an application against the State of Chile, in the Luis Almonacid Arellano case (No.
12,057). The application concerned the alleged failure to investigate and sanction
those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Alfredo Almonacid Arellano,
following the application of Decree Law No. 2,192, the Amnesty Act, adopted by
Chile in 1978, and also the alleged failure to make adequate reparation to his next of
kin: Elvira Del Rosario Gómez Olivares, Alfredo Almonacid Gómez, José Luis
Almonacid Gómez and Alexis Almonacid Gómez.
In the application, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the
State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8 (Right to a
Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal
Effects).
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to
adopt the measure of reparation indicated in the application, in accordance with
Article 63(1) (Obligation to Repair) of the American Convention.
H.
NEW PROVISIONAL MEASURES
During 2005, the following requests for provisional measures were submitted
to the Court:
1.
Provisional measures in the “Mapiripán Massacre" case (Colombia)
On February 4, 2005, in accordance with Articles 63(2) of the American
Convention and 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the representatives of the
alleged victims and their next of kin in this case filed a request for provisional
measures with regard to the State of Colombia, to protect the lives and personal
integrity of all the witnesses convened by the President of the Court in the order of
January 28, 2005, to make a sworn statement before a notary public (affidavit) or to
appear at the public hearing before the Court, as well as of all their next of kin; to
agree on the security measures with the persons protected and their representatives,
43
and to initiate the respective criminal and administrative investigations in relation to
the facts that gave rise to this request and inform the Court of their status.
The same day, the President of the Court issued an order for urgent
measures, in which he decided that the State must: adopt, forthwith, the necessary
measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of the following persons and
their next of kin: Carmen Johana Jaramillo Giraldo, Esther Pinzón López, Sara Paola
Pinzón López, María Teresa Pinzón López, Yur Mary Herrera Contreras, Zully Herrera
Contreras, Maryuri Caicedo Contreras, Nadia Marina Valencia Sanmiguel, Yinda
Adriana Valencia Sanmiguel, Johana Marina Valencia Sanmiguel, Gustavo Caicedo
Contreras, Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez Contreras, Roland Andrés Valencia Sanmiguel,
Ronald Mayiber Valencia Sanmiguel, Luis Guillermo Pérez, Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo,
Marina San Miguel Duarte, Viviana Barrera Cruz, Luz Mery Pinzón López and Mariela
Contreras Cruz; and investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption of these
urgent measures and, if applicable, identify those responsible and impose the
corresponding sanctions.
On June 27, 2005, the Court issued an order for provisional measures
(Appendix 29) in which, among other matters, it decided to ratify the order for
urgent measures adopted by the President of the Court in this case and that the
State must: adopt, forthwith, the necessary measures to protect the lives and
personal integrity of the persons indicated in the said order for urgent measures
and investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures
and, if applicable identify those responsible and impose the corresponding
sanctions.
2.
Provisional measures in the Gutiérrez Soler case (Colombia)
On March 11, 2005, the representatives of the alleged victim presented their
final arguments during the public hearing convened in the Gutiérrez Soler case
against the State of Colombia, in which, in accordance with Articles 63(2) of the
American Convention and 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, they requested the
adoption of immediate provisional measures in favor of the Gutiérrez Soler family,
in order to protect it from the aggression, harassment and threats endured as a
result of the facts of the case.
The same day, the Court issued an order on provisional measures (Appendix
6) in which, among other matters, it decided call upon the State to adopt the
necessary measures to: (a) protect the life, personal integrity and personal liberty of
Ricardo Gutiérrez Soler and his family, consisting of: his mother, María Elena Soler
de Gutiérrez; his children, Luisa Fernanda Gutiérrez Reyes, Paula Camila Gutiérrez
Reyes, Leonardo Gutiérrez Rubiano, Leydi Caterin Gutiérrez Peña, Sulma Tatiana
Gutiérrez Rubiano, Ricardo Alberto Gutiérrez Rubiano and Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez
Rubiano; and Yaqueline Reyes, and (b) to protect the life, personal integrity and
personal liberty of Wilson Gutiérrez Soler and his son, Kevin Daniel Gutiérrez Niño, if
they returned to Colombia.
3.
Provisional measures in the Ivcher Bronstein case (Peru)
On March 30, 2005, in accordance with Articles 63(2) of the American
Convention on Human Rights and 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, Baruch
44
Ivcher Bronstein, filed a request for provisional measures with regard to the State
of Peru “to protect [his] life, that of [his] immediate family, including his wife,
Noemy Even de Ivcher and [his] daughters Dafina, Michal and Hadaz Ivcher
Even[,] and also to protect [his] personal safety and [his] other rights that should
be protected and were severely threatened.” The State, the Commission and Ivcher
Bronstein presented additional information in relation to this request, including
information in relation to the measures that the State had already adopted in this
regard. The Ivcher Bronstein case is at the stage of monitoring compliance with the
judgment delivered by the Court on February 6, 2001.
4.
Provisional measures in the López Álvarez case (Honduras)
On May 30, 2005, the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin
informed the Court that “a man, who was subsequently identified as [...] a security
guard[,... had] fired into a vehicle [parked in a gasoline station, in which Gregoria]
Flores [General Coordinator of the Organización Fraternal Negra Hondureña
(OFRANEH) was sitting, injuring her right arm].” She had been proposed as a
witness in the López Álvarez case. They requested that “this situation should be
appraised in order to decide whether it was necessary to take measures to guarantee
the safety of the witnesses, expert witnesses and members of OFRANEH involved in
the case.”
On June 13, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures
(Appendix 15) in which, among other matters, it decided that the State should:
adopt, forthwith, the necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity
of Alfredo López Álvarez, Teresa Reyes Reyes and Gregoria Flores Martínez, who
would be appearing as witnesses before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
at the public hearing to be held starting on June 28, 2005, in the López Álvarez case.
5.
Provisional measures in the Ramírez Hinostroza et al. case (Peru)
On July 22, 2005, in accordance with Articles 63(2) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and 74 of the
Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
filed a request for provisional measures with regard to the State of Peru, for the
Court to adopt the necessary measure to protect the lives and personal integrity of
Luis Alberto Ramírez Hinostroza, his family, and his lawyer, Carlos Rivera Paz.
The same day, the President of the Court issued an order on urgent measures
and, among other matters, decided: to call upon the State to adopt forthwith all
necessary measures to protect the right to lives and personal integrity of Luis Alberto
Ramírez Hinostroza, his wife and daughters, and Carlos Rivera Paz, and, in this
respect, to take into account the gravity of the situation and the specific danger.
On September 21, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures
(Appendix 43) in which, among other matters, it decided ratify the order for urgent
measures adopted by the President of the Court in this case and to call upon the
State to maintain any measures it had already adopted and to adopt, forthwith, the
necessary measures to comply with the operative paragraphs of the said order as
regards the protection of the lives and personal integrity of Luis Alberto Ramírez
Hinostroza, his wife Susana Silvia Rivera Prado, his three daughters: Yolanda Susana
45
Ramírez Rivera, Karen Rose Ramírez Rivera and Lucero Consuelo Ramírez Rivera,
and Carlos Rivera Paz, his lawyer, and, in this respect, to take into account the
gravity of the situation and the specific danger.
6.
Provisional measures in the case of the Children and Adolescents
Deprived of liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM (Brazil)
On November 8, 2005, in accordance with Articles 63(2) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and 74 of the
Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
filed a request for provisional measures with regard to the State of Brazil, for the
State to protect the lives and personal integrity of the children deprived of liberty in
the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of the Fundação Estadual do Bem-Estar do Menor de São
Paulo (FEBEM). The Commission stated that the children detained in the complex had
been subjected to increasing dangers during recent months, as illustrated by a series
of uprisings, allegations of torture, deaths and injuries that had occurred during
2005.
On December 21, 2004, the Inter-American Commission had issued
precautionary measures in favor of the children and adolescents interned in the
“Complexo do Tatuapé.” However, the Commission alleged that these precautionary
measures had not resulted in the required protection, since, following the said
measures, several incidences of violence had occurred and reports persisted on the
infrahuman detention conditions. Consequently, the Commission requested the
Court: (a) to adopt, forthwith, all necessary security and control measures to
preserve the lives and personal integrity of the children and adolescents interned in
the FEBEM “Complexo do Tatuapé” and anyone who might be interned in this
detention center in the future; (b) to adopt, forthwith, all necessary measures to
prevent the interns from being subjected to torture or physical punishment; (c) to
adopt immediate measures to separate the young people whose cases were being
processed from those who had been convicted, in compliance with the conditions
required by the relevant international standards; (d) to conduct a genuine, complete
and prompt investigation into the acts of violence that had occurred inside the
FEBEM “Complexo do Tatuapé” ; to identify those responsible and impose the
corresponding sanctions, as a mechanism to prevent the occurrence of renewed acts
of violence; (e) to guarantee the periodic monitoring of detention conditions and the
physical condition of the young interns, by an independent body, and to ensure that
the reports prepared by this body were forwarded to the Court, and (f) to adapt the
facilities of the FEBEM “Complexo do Tatuapé”, within a reasonable time frame, to
ensure the minimum conditions of hygiene, space and decency necessary for housing
children and adolescents.
On November 17, 2005, the Court issued an order in this case (Appendix
60) calling upon the State to adopt immediately the necessary measures to protect
the lives and personal integrity of all the children and adolescents interned in the
FEBEM “Complexo do Tatuapé,” as well as all those inside the complex. It also
decided to convene the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the
representatives of the beneficiaries of these provisional measures, and the State of
Brazil to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on November 29, 2005.
46
On November 30, 2005, the Court issued a new order on provisional
measures (Appendix 61) in which, among other matters, it decided that the State
of Brazil must: adopt all necessary measures to protect the lives and personal
integrity of all the children and adolescents interned in the FEBEM “Complexo do
Tatuapé,” as well as all those inside the complex; specifically to prevent the
outbursts of violence, to ensure the safety of the interns, to maintain order and
discipline in this center, and to prevent the young interns being subjected to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court also decided that the State must adopt
the necessary measures to reduce overcrowding in the “Complexo do Tatuapé,”
confiscate the arms in the possession of the youths, separate the interns, in keeping
with the relevant international standards and, considering the best interests of the
child, provide the necessary medical care to the child interns and periodically monitor
the detention conditions and the physical and emotional condition of the children
detained there.
7.
Provisional measures in the Castañeda Gutman case (Mexico)
On November 15, 2005, in accordance with Articles 63(2) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and 74 of the
Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
filed a request for provisional measures with regard to the State of Mexico
concerning Jorge Castañeda Gutman, for the State to adopt the necessary actions to
ensure the registration of his candidacy for the Presidency of the Republic while the
Inter-American Commission decided on the admissibility and merits of the petition
presented by Mr. Castañeda on the violation of several of the rights protected by the
American Convention, including the right to participate in government and the right
to equal protection.
On October 17, 2005, the Inter-American Commission issued precautionary
measures in favor of Mr. Castañeda Gutman. However, the Commission alleged that
these precautionary measures had not resulted in the necessary protection.
Consequently, the Commission requested the Court to order the State: (a) to adopt,
forthwith, all necessary measures to allow the registration of the candidacy of Jorge
Castañeda Gutman for the Presidency of the Republic of Mexico, while the organs of
the inter-American system decided on the admissibility and merits of the report
presented; (b) to agree with the beneficiary the most appropriate mechanisms for
implementing the protection measures, in order to ensure their pertinence and
effectiveness, and (c) to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights about the
specific actions it had taken to implement the provisional measures.
On November 25, 2005, the Court issued an order on provisional measures
(Appendix 57) in which it decided to reject as inadmissible this request in favor of
Jorge Castañeda Gutman.
8.
Provisional measures in the Cesti Hurtado case (Peru)
On November 21, 2005, Mr. Cesti Hurtado requested the adoption of “the
necessary measures to protect the rights not only of the victim, but also of the [Lima
thirty-seventh civil] judge, guaranteeing the independence of the powers.”
Subsequently, on December 2, 2005, the representative of the victim requested the
Court, “under Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights to adopt
47
provisional measures in favor of Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, in order to protect
compliance with the judgments delivered by the Court to repair the violation of his
human rights and prevent the continued violation of other rights embodied in the
said Convention and other instruments for the protection of human rights.”
On December 21, 2005, having consulted all the judges of the Court, the
President of the Court issued an order (Appendix 66) in which he decided to reject
the request for provisional measures filed by Gustavo Cesti Hurtado’s representative.
I.
STATUS OF MATTERS BEFORE THE COURT
1.
Contentious cases
Name of the case
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Neira Alegría et al. case
Caballero Delgado and
Santana case
El Amparo case
Garrido and Baigorria case
Castillo Páez case
Loayza Tamayo case
Paniagua Morales et al.
case
Blake case
Suárez Rosero case
Benavides Cevallos case
Cantoral Benavides case
Durand and Ugarte case
Bámaca Velásquez case
The “Street Children” case
(Villagrán Morales et al.)
Castillo Petruzzi et al. case
Cesti Hurtado case
Baena Ricardo et al. case
The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas
Tingni Community case
Las Palmeras case
Cantos case
Ivcher Bronstein case
The Constitutional Court
case
Hilaire, Constantine and
Benjamin et al. case
El Caracazo case
Trujillo Oroza case
Barrios Altos case
19 Tradesmen case
Bulacio case
Respondent
State
Current state
Peru
Colombia
Monitoring compliance with judgment
Monitoring compliance with judgment
Venezuela
Argentina
Peru
Peru
Guatemala
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
with
with
with
with
with
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
Guatemala
Ecuador
Ecuador
Peru
Peru
Guatemala
Guatemala
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
with
with
with
with
with
with
with
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
Peru
Peru
Panama
Nicaragua
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
with
with
with
with
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
Colombia
Argentina
Peru
Peru
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
with
with
with
with
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
Trinidad
and Tobago
Venezuela
Bolivia
Peru
Colombia
Argentina
Monitoring compliance with judgment
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
with
with
with
with
with
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
48
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Myrna Mack Chang case
Juan H. Sánchez case
“Five Pensioners” case
Maritza Urrutia case
Gómez Paquiyauri case
The “Children’s
Rehabilitation Institute”
case
Ricardo Canese case
Lori Berenson Mejía case
The Plan de Sánchez
Massacre case
Herrera Ulloa case
Caesar case
40. Yakye Axa Indigenous
Community case
41. Carpio Nicolle et al. case
42. The Serrano Cruz Sisters
case
43. YATAMA case
44. De La Cruz Flores case
45. Tibi case
46. Acosta Calderón case
47. Molina Thiessen case
48. The Yean and Bosico case
49. The “Mapiripán Massacre”
case
50. Pedro Huilca Tecse case
51. Gutiérrez Soler case
52. Palamara Iribarne case
53. García Asto and Ramírez
Rojas case
54. Blanco Romero et al. case
55. Fermín Ramírez case
56. Gómez Palomino case
57. Raxcacó Reyes case
58. The Moiwana Community
case
Guatemala
Honduras
Peru
Guatemala
Peru
Paraguay
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
with
with
with
with
with
with
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
Paraguay
Peru
Guatemala
Monitoring compliance with judgment
Monitoring compliance with judgment
Monitoring compliance with judgment
Costa Rica Monitoring compliance with judgment
Trinidad
Monitoring compliance with judgment
and Tobago
Paraguay
Monitoring compliance with judgment
Guatemala
El Salvador
Monitoring compliance with judgment
Monitoring compliance with judgment
Nicaragua
Peru
Ecuador
Ecuador
Guatemala
Dominican
Republic
Colombia
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Peru
Colombia
Chile
Peru
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Venezuela
Guatemala
Peru
Guatemala
Suriname
Monitoring compliance with
Monitoring compliance with
Monitoring compliance with
Monitoring compliance with
Monitoring compliance with
Interpretation of judgment
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
with
with
with
with
with
with
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
Monitoring compliance with judgment
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
with
with
with
with
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment
judgment/
49
59. Acevedo Jaramillo et al.
case
Peru
Preliminary objections and possible
merits, reparations and costs
60. Pueblo Bello case
Colombia
61. Ituango case
Colombia
62. Montero Aranguren et al.
case
63. Nogueira de Carvalho case
Venezuela
64. Almonacid Arellano case
Chile
65.
66.
67.
68.
Brazil
Honduras
Honduras
Paraguay
Preliminary objections and possible
merits, reparations and costs
Preliminary objections and possible
merits, reparations and costs
Preliminary objections and possible
merits, reparations and costs
Preliminary objections and possible
merits, reparations and costs
Preliminary objections and possible
merits, reparations and costs
Merits and possible reparations and
Merits and possible reparations and
Merits and possible reparations and
Merits and possible reparations and
Peru
Paraguay
Chile
Peru
Peru
Merits and possible reparations and costs
Merits and possible reparations and costs
Merits and possible reparations and costs
Initial processing (written procedure)
Initial processing (written procedure)
Paraguay
Initial processing (written procedure)
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
Ximenes Lopes case
López Álvarez case
Servellón García et al. case
The Sawhoyamaxa
Indigenous Community
case
Baldeón García case
Vargas Areco case
Claude Reyes et al. case
Juárez Cruzzat et al. case
The “Dismissed
Congressional Employees”
case
Goiburú et al. case
2.
Brazil
Provisional measures
Name of the case
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
costs
costs
costs
costs
Álvarez et al.
Bámaca Velásquez et al.
Caballero Delgado and Santana
Carpio Nicolle et al.
Colotenango
Giraldo Cardona
James et al.
Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the
Dominican Republic
Peace Community of San José de Apartadó
Pilar Noriega García et al.
Gallardo Rodríguez
Urso Branco Prison
Helen Mack et al.
State regarding which
they have been
adopted
Colombia
Guatemala
Colombia
Guatemala
Guatemala
Colombia
Trinidad and Tobago
Dominican Republic
Colombia
Mexico
Mexico
Brazil
Guatemala
50
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
III.
The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tigni Community
Liliana Ortega et al.
Luis Uzcátegui
Luisiana Ríos et al.
Communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curbaradó
Lysias Fleury
Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez
Gómez Paquiyauri
The Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku
The “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” Newspapers
Kankuamo Indigenous Community
Carlos Nieto et al.
“Globovisión” Television Station
19 Tradesmen (Sandra Belinda Montero Fuentes et al)
Raxcacó et al.
Boyce et al.
Eloisa Barrios et al.
Mendoza Prisons
“Mapiripán Massacre”
Gutiérrez Soler et al.
Ramírez Hinostroza et al.
López Álvarez et al.
Children and Adolescents deprived of liberty in the
“Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM
Nicaragua
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
Colombia
Haiti
Venezuela
Peru
Ecuador
Venezuela
Colombia
Venezuela
Venezuela
Colombia
Guatemala
Barbados
Venezuela
Argentina
Colombia
Colombia
Peru
Honduras
Brazil
OTHER ACTIVITIES
OF THE COURT
The following is a description of the principal activities of the Court during
the current year:
Presentation of the 2004 Annual Report on the Work of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
On April 14, 2005, the President of the Court, accompanied by the Vice
President and the Secretary of the Court, presented the 2004 Annual Report on the
work of the Inter-American Court to the OAS Committee on Juridical and Political
Affairs (CJPA). During this activity, Judge García Ramírez first presented a “Summary
of the 2004 exercise” (Appendix 67).
Then, on June 1, 2005, CJPA issued the “Observations and Recommendations
of the Permanent Council on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights,” in resolution AG/doc. 4475/05.
51
Thirty-fourth regular session of the
General Assembly of the Organization of American States
The thirty-fourth regular session of the OAS General Assembly was held in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States, on June 6 and 7, 2005. The Inter-American
Court was represented by its President, Vice President and Secretary.
On June 7, 2005, the President of the Court addressed the plenary session
of the Assembly and, among other matters, referred to the importance of the
international protection of human rights retaining the highest priority on the
Organization’s political agenda; to the hope that the States that had not yet
acceded to the American Convention would become parties to it, and to acceptance
of the standards established by the Court in the domestic laws of the States
Parties. He referred to the increase in the number of contentious cases, and the
requests for advisory opinions and provisional measures submitted to the Court,
which represented one of the greatest and most challenging factors for the interAmerican jurisdiction, and also to recognition of the importance of compliance with
the Court’s decisions and the efforts of the States to ensure their complete
observance.
The same day, the OAS General Assembly adopted the Court’s 2004 Annual
Report in Resolution AG/RES. 2129 (XXXV-O/05). In this resolution the General
Assembly resolved:
1.
To adopt the observations and recommendations of the Permanent Council
on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (AG/doc.4475/05);
and to transmit them to that organ.
2.
To reaffirm the essential value of the work of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights in enhancing the promotion and defense of human rights in the
Hemisphere.
3.
To reiterate that the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights are final and may not be appealed and that the states parties to the Convention
undertake to comply with the decisions of the Court in all cases to which they are
party.
4.
To reiterate the need for states parties to provide, in a timely fashion, the
information requested by the Court in order to enable it to fully meet its obligation to
report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments.
5.
To reaffirm the importance of:
a.
The advisory function of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
for the development of inter-American jurisprudence and international
human rights law and, in that context, to take note of Advisory Opinion
OC-18/03; and
b.
The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for
the effective exercise of and respect for human rights in the Hemisphere,
and consequently the dissemination of its decisions by the member states,
as they deem it appropriate.
6.
To instruct the Permanent Council to:
52
a.
Continue its consideration of the issue of “Access of victims to the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (jus standi) and its application in
practice,” including its financial and budgetary implications, taking into
account the report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights entitled
“Bases for a Draft Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights
to Strengthen Its Mechanism for Protection - Volume II”; the proposal
presented by the Government of Costa Rica, “Draft Optional Protocol to
the American Convention on Human Rights”; the revised Rules of
Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights; and the need to maintain
procedural equity and to redefine the role of the Commission in
proceedings before the Court;
b.
Continue to consider means of encouraging compliance by member states
with the judgments of the Court; and
c.
Instruct the Permanent Council to continue to examine ways to bring
about an effective and adequate increase in the financial resources
allocated to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which will take
into account the suggestions made by the Court itself in its Annual Report
for 2004, including, among other things, the possibility of increasing the
number and the length of its sessions. To that effect, request the
Secretary General of the Organization to present a proposal, sufficiently in
advance of the next regular session of the General Assembly, with
alternatives for bringing about an effective and adequate increase in the
financial resources allocated to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
in the program-budget of the Organization.
7.
In addition, to encourage member states to contribute to the Specific Fund
for Strengthening the Inter-American System for the Protection and Promotion of
Human Rights. Also to thank member states, permanent observers, and other
institutions that have made voluntary contributions to the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights.
8.
To encourage member states to continue to invite the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights to hold special sessions away from its headquarters.
9.
To urge the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, and the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights to
continue to hold specialized seminars on the inter-American system for the promotion
and protection of human rights for government officials.
10. To invite the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to continue to
participate, with its judges, in the dialogue with member states in the reflection
process on strengthening the inter-American human rights system, within the context
of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs.
11. To urge the OAS member states to consider the signature and ratification
of, ratification of, or accession to, as the case may be, the American Convention on
Human Rights and other instruments of the system, including acceptance of the
binding jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
12. To request the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its
thirty-sixth regular session on the implementation of this resolution, which will be
carried out within the resources allocated in the program-budget of the Organization
and other resources.
53
The same day, the OAS General Assembly adopted Resolution AG/RES. 2075
(XXXV-O/05) entitled “Strengthening of the Human Rights Systems to Follow Up on
the Plan of Action of the Third Summit of the Americas,” in which it decided:
1.
To reaffirm the commitment of member states to continue
strengthening and improving the inter-American system for the promotion and
protection of human rights and, in that connection, to continue to take concrete
measures aimed at implementing the respective mandates of the Heads of State and
Government, as set forth in the Plan of Action of the Third Summit of the Americas:
a)
Universalization of the inter-American human rights system by
considering the signature and ratification or ratification of, or accession
to, as soon as possible and as the case may be, all universal and interAmerican human rights instruments;
b)
Compliance with the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights and follow-up of the recommendations of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights;
c)
Facilitation of access for individuals to the inter-American human rights
system;
d)
A substantial increase in the budget of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights and that of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights so that, within a reasonable time, they may address their
growing activities and responsibilities; and
e)
Examination of the possibility that the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights may
come to operate on a permanent basis, taking into account, among
other things, the views of those organs.
2.
To recognize recent progress made in the specific areas of the interAmerican human rights system identified in the Plan of Action of the Third Summit of
the Americas, namely:
a.
The initiation, within the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs
(CAJP) of the Permanent Council, of the broad process of reflection on
the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human
rights;
b.
The start of a dialogue, within the Committee on Juridical and Political
Affairs, between member states and the organs of the inter-American
human rights system (Inter-American Court of Human Rights and
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), in which the InterAmerican Institute of Human Rights also participated;
c.
The beginning of the process of reflection by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights during the special session of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, held in Mexico City on July 19 and 20, 2004;
d.
Establishment of the Follow-up Mechanism of the Inter-American
Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence
against Women, “Convention of Belém do Pará”;
54
e.
The “standards for the preparation of periodic reports on progressive
measures adopted by the states parties to the Additional Protocol to
the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights, or ‘Protocol of San Salvador,’ as provided
in Article 19 of that legal instrument”;
f.
Application of the new Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights and those of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, which has resulted, inter alia, in increased participation
by victims in proceedings before the Court and greater use of the
friendly settlement procedure in cases considered by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, as well as follow-up by the
Commission on compliance with its recommendations on this subject;
g.
Deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Inter-American
Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons by Colombia; and
h.
The voluntary contributions to facilitate the work of the organs of the
inter-American human rights system made by Brazil, Costa Rica, and
Mexico, along with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) and the European Union for the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights; and by Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, United States,
Mexico, and Peru, along with Denmark, Spain, Finland, France,
Sweden, the Inter-American Development Bank, the European Union,
the Ford Foundation, and the University of Notre Dame for the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights.
3.
To instruct the Permanent Council to meet the objectives mentioned in
operative paragraph 1 and to complement and consolidate the progress referred to in
operative paragraph 2, by:
a.
Continuing the broad process of reflection on the inter-American
system for the promotion and protection of human rights, initiated
within the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, in consultation
with the member states, specialized agencies of the inter-American
human rights system, nongovernmental organizations, national human
rights institutes, academic institutions, and experts in the field,
regarding:
i.
ii.
iii.
The major challenges facing the inter-American system for the
promotion and protection of human rights in the Hemisphere;
Possible actions to strengthen and improve the system; and
The advisability of convening an inter-American human rights
conference.
b.
Continuing to examine ways to bring about an effective and adequate
increase in the financial resources allocated to the organs of the interAmerican human rights system in the program-budget of the
Organization;
c.
Supporting any initiatives taken by the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to
request funding from international and regional agencies to further the
activities of the organs of the inter-American system for the promotion
and protection of human rights;
55
d.
Encouraging, in addition, OAS member states to contribute to the
Specific Fund for Strengthening the Inter-American System for the
Protection and Promotion of Human Rights;
e.
Continuing to consider ways to promote compliance with the
judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and follow-up
on the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights by member states;
f.
Continuing to analyze the priorities for improvement of the interAmerican human rights system, including consideration of the
possibility that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights may come to operate on
a permanent basis, taking into account related information provided by
the presidents of both organs; and
g.
Holding each year, within the Committee on Juridical and Political
Affairs, the dialogue between the member states and the members of
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights on the way the inter-American human
rights system operates. The Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs
will establish the agenda for said meeting at least two months in
advance;
h.
Requesting the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights to:
i.
ii.
Continue to report on the correlation between, on the one
hand, their respective Rules of Procedure and the amendments
thereto that they adopt, and, on the other, the provisions of
their respective Statutes and of the American Convention on
Human Rights; and
Continue to report on the impact and the meaning in practice
of these regulatory reforms for the work of both organs and for
the strengthening of the system; and
4.
To reaffirm the commitment of our heads of state and government to
promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Hemisphere by
strengthening the capacity of governmental institutions mandated to do so and, in that
connection, to instruct the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs to devote a
meeting, prior to the Fourth Summit of the Americas, to the progress made on this
topic, among other things.
5.
To continue to promote the strengthening of national systems for the
promotion and protection of human rights in member states and, to that end, to urge
the pertinent organs, agencies, and entities of the Organization to provide, in
accordance with their capabilities and resources, cooperation and technical support to
the member states that so request, in order to help enhance compliance with their
international human rights obligations, and to develop cooperative relations and
information exchange, inter alia, with the Network of National Institutions for the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the Ibero-American Federation of
Ombudsmen.
6.
To request the Permanent Council to follow up on this resolution,
which will be carried out in accordance with the resources allocated in the programbudget of the Organization and other resources, and to present a report on its
implementation to the General Assembly at its thirty-sixth regular session.
56
Joint meeting with the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
On May 11, 2005, the members of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights and the Inter-American Commissions on Human Rights held a meeting in
Asunción, Paraguay. During the meeting they discussed issues such as: the
Commission’s role before the Inter-American Court, monitoring compliance with the
decisions of both organs, and the budgetary situation of the two organs of the
inter-American system for the protection of human rights.
For the Court, the meeting was attended by: Judges Sergio García Ramírez
(President), Alirio Abreu Burelli (Vice President), Oliver Jackman, Antonio A. Cançado
Trindade, Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Manuel E. Ventura Robles, and the Secretary of
the Court, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, and the Deputy Secretary, Emilia Segares
Rodríguez, the Court’s Administrative Officer, Arturo Herrera, and the lawyers, Olger
González, Gabriela Pacheco and Francisco Quintana. And for the Commission by:
Commissioners Evelio Fernández and Florentín Meléndez, and Principal Specialists,
Ariel Dulitzky, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Pedro Díaz, Víctor Madrigal, Lilly Ching, Juan
Pablo Albán and Manuela Cuvi.
The two institutions carry out this type of meeting periodically, mandated by
the OAS General Assembly, in order to program and coordinate their work.
First Specialized Course for State Officials on
the Use of the Inter-American System for
the Protection of Human Rights
From March 9 to 15, 2005, the “First Specialized Course for State officials on
the use of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights” was held in
San José, Costa Rica. It was organized jointly by the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, the Inter-American Commissions on Human Rights and the Inter-American
Institute of Human Rights. During the course, which was attended by 48 officials of
various Latin American States, several of the Court’s judges, as well as officials of
the Court, the Commission and the Institute gave presentations.
IV.
INTER-INSTITUTIONAL
COOPERATION AGREEMENTS
During the year, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights signed seven
cooperation agreements with different institutions of the Americas. The agreements
were signed with: the Universidad Iberoamericana, A.C., Mexico, the Supreme Court
of Justice of Paraguay, the Judiciary Council of the Republic of Paraguay, the
Universidad Nacional Autónoma del Paraguay, the Universidad Americana del
Paraguay, the Universidad Católica del Paraguay, the Human Rights Center of the
Universidad de Margarita, Venezuela, and the Center for Human Rights Studies of
the Universidad Central, Venezuela. The purpose of these agreements is to establish
a basis for collaboration in order to carry out joint activities with these institutions in
the area of human rights research, teaching, divulgation and extension.
57
V.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
The Inter-American Court’s financial statements for the 2004 financial year
were audited by the independent external auditing firm, Venegas, Pizarro, Ugarte &
Co., authorized public accountants, who represent HLB International in Costa Rica.
The audit included both OAS funds and the State of Costa Rica’s contribution
for this period. The financial statements are prepared by the administrative unit of
the Inter-American Court and the audit was made in order to confirm that the
Court’s financial transactions take into account generally accepted accounting and
auditing principles.
According to the March 3, 2005, report of the authorized public accountants,
the Court’s financial statements adequately reflect the institution’s financial situation
and net assets, and also the income, expenditure and cash flows for the 2004 period,
which are in accordance with consistently applied and generally accepted accounting
principles for non-profit organizations, such as the Court.
The report of the independent auditors shows that the internal accounting
control system used by the Court is adequate for recording and controlling
transactions and that reasonable commercial practices are used to ensure the most
effective use of its funds.
A copy of this report was send to the OAS Financial Services Department and
to the Organization’s Inspector General.
International Cooperation
In the area of international cooperation, a cooperation agreement to
strengthen and increase the Court’s judicial activities was signed with the European
Commission in 2004 for the sum of €800,000.00 (€600,000.00 contributed by the
European Union and €200,000.00 counterpart funds from the Court); the agreement
has been implement this year. The Mexican State renewed its support to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights for the sixth time and donated the amount of
US$125,000.00.00 (one hundred and twenty-five thousand United States dollars). In
addition, the Court received a contribution of US$4,800.59 (four thousand eight
hundred United States dollars and fifty-nine cents) from the Republic of Paraguay,
US$60,000.00 (sixty thousand United States dollars) from the Federative Republic of
Brazil, and US$7,500.00 (seven thousand five hundred United States dollars) from
the Republic of Colombia.
The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) donated US$125,000.00 (one
hundred and twenty-five thousand United States dollars) to the program to
strengthen the Court’s library. And the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) donated US$4,168.75 (four thousand one hundred and sixtyeight United States dollars and seventy-five cents) to strengthen the Court’s Editorial
Unit.
Although the Inter-American Court’s budget is financed by the OAS, the
Government of Costa Rica also contributes an annual amount of US$100,000.00 (one
58
hundred thousand United States dollars), as part of the commitment it made on
signing the Headquarters Agreement in 1983. The Government of Costa Rica has
included this amount in its 2006 budget.
Statistics of the Court
The following 25 tables illustrate the activities of the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights, and its current status:
59
GRAPHICS
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 1.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 2.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 3.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 4.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 5.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 6.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 7.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 8.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 9.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 10.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 11.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 12.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 13.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 14.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 15.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 16.pdf
60
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 17.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 18.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 19.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 20.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 21.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 22.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 23.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 24.pdf
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/inglés/grafico 25.pdf
61
APPENDICES
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo01.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo02.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo02V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo02V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo02V3.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo03.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo04.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo05.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo06.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo07.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo07V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo07V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo07V3.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo07V4.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo08.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo09.doc
62
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo10.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo10V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo11.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo11V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo12.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo13.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo14.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo15.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo16.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo17.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo18.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo19.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo20.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo20V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo20V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo21.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo21A.doc
63
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo21V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo21V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo21V3.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo22.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo23.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo23V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo23V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo24.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo24V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo24V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo25.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo25V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo25V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo25V3.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo25V4.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo25V5.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo26.doc
64
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo27.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo27V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo27V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo28.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo29.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo30.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo31.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo31V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo32.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo33.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo34.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo34V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo35.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo35V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo36.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo37.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo37V1.doc
65
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo37V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo37V3.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo38.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo39.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo39V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo39V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo40.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo40V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo41.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo42.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo43.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo44.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo44V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo45.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo46.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo47.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo48.doc
66
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo49.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo50.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo51.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo52.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo52V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo53.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo53V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo53V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo54.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo54V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo54V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo54V3.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo55.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo56.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo56V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo57.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo57V.doc
67
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo58.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo58V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo58V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo59.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo60.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo60V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo61.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo61V1.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo61V2.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo62.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo62V.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo63.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo64.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo65.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo66.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo67.doc
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2006/Corte Interamericana DDHH/anexo68.doc
CP15760E05